Court Opinion

ID: 9844210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:59:00.653959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:29.842644
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
McFADDEN, Justice.
After reviewing the dissenting opinions and the arguments raised on re-hearing, we adhere to our previous decision.
On rehearing, the respondent asserts that this case should be given prospective application only. Under the rule of prospective application, “a decision is effective only in future actions, and does not affect the rule of law in the case in which the new rule is announced”. Thompson v. Hagan, 96 Idaho 19, 523 P.2d 1365, 1371 (1974). The other two approaches to the question of the applicability of this decision to past, present and future litigation are the traditional rule and the modified prospective rule. The traditional rule holds that a decision is applicable to both past and future cases. Thompson v. Hagan, supra, p. 1371. With the modified prospective rule, “the new decision applies prospectively and to the parties bringing the action resulting in the new decision; or, to the parties bringing the action and all similar pending actions”. Thompson v. Hagan, supra, p. 1371.
In determining which rule to apply, three factors must be considered — the purpose of the decision, reliance on the prior rule of law, the effect upon the administration of justice. Thompson v. Hagan, supra, p. 1371, 523 P.2d 1365. The purpose of abrogating the doctrine of interspousal immunity is to allow a spouse to maintain an action for damages caused by the other spouse; this purpose would be best served by applying this case to past and present *26actions. Regarding the reliance factor, insurance companies have probably relied upon the doctrine in establishing their premium rates. Analyzing the effect of this decision upon the administration of justice, we conclude that the effect of the abrogation of the doctrine of interspousal immunity will be negligible as other states have not experienced a noticeable increase in litigation. Accord, Richard v. Richard, 300 A.2d 637, 641 (Vt.1973); Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wash.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (1972); Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 26 Cal.Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70 (Cal. 1962).
After evaluating these factors, we conclude that the modified prospective rule should be applied to this case. The decision abrogating the doctrine of interspousal immunity applies to this action, to all actions pending on the date this decision becomes final, and to all actions arising thereafter. See, Appellate Rule 45.
McQUADE, C. J., and DONALDSON, J., concur.
SHEPARD and BAKES, JJ., concur in the opinion on rehearing regarding prospective application, but continue to adhere to their original dissent.