Court Opinion

ID: 6295990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-18 17:19:52.894901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:24.472572
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, J.,
concurs in the order of the Court, but believes that the doctrine of spousal immunity is anachronistic and serves no useful purpose. The modern view is to *590eliminate the doctrine. Pennsylvania should join the increasing majority of jurisdictions abrogating it. See DiGirolamo v. Apanavage, 454 Pa. 557, 312 A.2d 382 (1973) (Dissenting Opinion by ROBERTS, J.); Kelso v. Mielcarek, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 476, 313 A.2d 324 (1973) (Concurring Opinion by HOFFMAN, J.).