Court Opinion

ID: 9677849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:02:02.092887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:59.064365
License: Public Domain

HARBISON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Luna v. Clayton, 655 S.W.2d 893 (Tenn.1983).
I think that the subject of spousal immunity is so firmly rooted in the jurisprudence of this state, both statutory and common law, that its modification or abrogation should be considered and acted upon by the elected representatives of the people, the General Assembly. As pointed out in the dissent in Luna v. Clayton, supra, not only is the rule firmly embedded in the common law of this state, but statutory law surrounding the family and its incidents has been predicated upon the assumption that there is no right of action between spouses for torts committed during marriage.
I agree with the majority opinion that many of the reasons given to support marital immunity are superficial and not convincing. On the other hand the impact of a decision such as this upon numerous statutes, as discussed in Luna v. Clayton, is, or can be in many instances, very great, and such a fundamental change in the public policy of this state, in my opinion, should be made after deliberation by the General Assembly.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.