Graham v. Franco
16 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 62, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 242, 488 S. W.2d 390 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Texas statute classifying recovery for personal bodily injuries (excluding loss of earning capacity) as the separate property of the injured spouse during marriage is constitutional, and the contributory negligence of one spouse does not bar the other spouse's recovery for their separate property personal injuries.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Franco were riding in their car at night on the highway.
- Their car was struck from the rear by a truck owned by Bill Graham and driven by Roosevelt Tillis.
- Mr. and Mrs. Franco testified that Mr. Franco was driving on the right side of the highway with lights burning, and rear lights had recently been checked.
- The truck driver, Roosevelt Tillis, testified that the Franco car was stopped on the highway with its lights off.
- Mrs. Franco was injured in the collision, requiring hospitalization for 13 days, including several in intensive care.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Franco filed a lawsuit against Bill Graham and Roosevelt Tillis following a rear-end collision.
- The jury found the truck driver negligent, and also found Mr. Franco negligent for stopping his car on the highway without a rear light, with each act being a proximate cause.
- The jury found Mr. Franco's damages to be 'zero' and Mrs. Franco's medical expenses to be $2,212.92, but her overall damages were also found to be 'zero'.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment as to Mr. Franco, holding his contributory negligence barred his recovery.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment as to Mrs. Franco and remanded for a new trial, finding the jury's 'zero' damages award for her was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Is a Texas statute that classifies recovery for personal bodily injuries sustained during marriage as the separate property of the injured spouse, rather than community property, constitutional? 2) Does a husband's contributory negligence in an accident bar his wife's recovery for her personal bodily injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenhill, Chief Justice
Yes, a Texas statute classifying recovery for personal bodily injuries sustained during marriage as the separate property of the injured spouse is constitutional as construed, and no, a husband's contributory negligence in an accident does not bar his wife's recovery for her personal bodily injuries. The Court found that historically, under common law and Spanish law at the time the Texas Constitution was adopted, a cause of action for personal injury to a spouse was not considered 'property' in the same sense as property that could be bought, sold, or inherited. If it were considered property, its character was separate and personal to the injured spouse, not an asset 'acquired' by the community efforts of both spouses. The Court overrules prior dictum from Ezell v. Dodson (1883) and subsequent cases which incorrectly held that such recovery was community property. Therefore, damages for injury to the wife's body, disfigurement, and physical pain and suffering are her separate property. Conversely, recovery for medical expenses and loss of earning capacity are considered community property because the community bears the burden of these expenses and benefits from earning capacity. Since the wife's personal bodily injury recovery is her separate property, the traditional rationale for imputing the husband's negligence (to prevent him from profiting from his own wrong through community property) no longer applies. Thus, the husband's contributory negligence does not bar the wife's recovery for her separate property damages. However, for any damages classified as community property (like medical expenses or lost earnings), the husband's contributory negligence would still be imputed to the community.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped the landscape of marital property rights and tort law in Texas, particularly concerning personal injury claims. By reclassifying recovery for bodily injuries as separate property and overruling long-standing, albeit erroneous, precedent, the court significantly expanded an injured spouse's ability to recover damages irrespective of the other spouse's fault. This ruling provides greater financial autonomy to the injured spouse and limits the scope of imputed contributory negligence, influencing how personal injury cases involving married couples are litigated and damages are awarded in Texas.
