Freehe v. Freehe
500 P.2d 771, 81 Wn.2d 183 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is abandoned; a person may sue their spouse for a personal tort committed during the marriage.
Facts:
- Clifford Freehe sustained personal injuries in an accident involving a tractor.
- Freehe alleged his wife, Hazel Knoblauch, was negligent in maintaining the tractor and failed to warn him of its unsafe condition.
- The accident occurred on a farm that was the separate property of Knoblauch, operated under the name Hazel Knoblauch.
- The tractor and all other assets and income of the farm were the separate property of Knoblauch.
- The farm was operated as a business separate from any community business of the married couple.
- Freehe had no ownership interest in the farming operation and was not employed by his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford Freehe filed a lawsuit against his wife, Hazel Knoblauch, in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- The defendant, Knoblauch, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by interspousal tort immunity.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiff, Freehe, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity bar one spouse from bringing a personal injury action against the other spouse for a tort committed during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Neill, J.
No. The common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is an outdated, court-made rule that is hereby abandoned and no longer bars a spouse from suing the other for personal injury. The court systematically dismantled the traditional justifications for the immunity doctrine, finding them insufficient in modern society. First, the historical concept of spousal 'unity,' where a wife's legal identity merged with her husband's, is an anachronism that conflicts with modern statutes recognizing spouses as separate legal individuals. Second, the argument that allowing such suits would destroy domestic peace and tranquility is baseless; if harmony exists, no suit will be brought, and if it does not, the immunity is more likely a source of contention. Third, concerns about collusion for insurance fraud are a pessimistic view of the judicial process's ability to detect fraudulent claims. Because the immunity doctrine is a judicial creation, the court has the authority and responsibility to abrogate it when it is no longer justified. To address concerns specific to community property law, the court established a formula for damages: special damages are recoverable by the community, one-half of lost future community earnings are recoverable as the injured spouse's separate property, and damages for pain and suffering are fully recoverable as the injured spouse's separate property.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of family law in Washington, abolishing a long-standing common-law immunity. It aligns the state with a growing number of jurisdictions that recognize the legal individuality of spouses. The court's proactive creation of a specific damage-allocation formula is particularly noteworthy, as it provides a practical solution to the unique problem of applying tort law within a community property framework. This formula prevents the tortfeasor spouse from benefiting from their own wrong while ensuring fair compensation for the injured party, setting a clear precedent for how such damages should be handled in future interspousal tort cases.
Unlock the full brief for Freehe v. Freehe