Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co.
7 Wis. 2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a conflict of laws analysis, the law of the state where spouses are domiciled governs the issue of interspousal immunity from tort liability, as this is a matter of family law rather than tort law.
Facts:
- A husband and wife were domiciled in the state of Wisconsin.
- While traveling in California, they were involved in an automobile accident.
- The wife sustained personal injuries in the accident.
- The wife alleged that her husband's negligence caused the accident and her injuries.
- Under Wisconsin law at the time, a wife was permitted to sue her husband for personal torts.
- Under California law at the time, one spouse could not sue the other for personal torts due to interspousal immunity.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff wife filed a lawsuit in a Wisconsin trial court against her husband's insurer to recover for personal injuries.
- The defendant argued that California law, which provides for interspousal immunity, should apply because the accident occurred there.
- The trial court applied the existing Wisconsin rule (lex loci delicti), concluded that California law governed, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.
- The plaintiff wife appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 law of the state of domicile, rather than the law of the place of the wrong, govern the capacity of one spouse to sue the other in tort?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, J.
Yes. The law of the state of domicile governs the capacity of one spouse to sue the other in tort. The court holds that the issue of interspousal immunity is a question of family law, not tort law. The state of domicile has the primary interest and responsibility for regulating the incidents of the family relationship. Applying the law of the place of the wrong would be fortuitous and would cause the rights and disabilities of the marital relationship to change arbitrarily as family members cross state lines. This decision overrules prior precedent, such as Buckeye v. Buckeye, which followed the traditional rule of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong), because strong public policy and logic favor applying the law of the state most concerned with the issue—the domicile.
Concurring - Fairchild, J.
Yes, the wife can sue, but the court did not need to overrule established precedent to reach this result. The same outcome could be achieved by applying the concept of renvoi. Under Wisconsin's existing rule, the court would look to the law of California (the place of the wrong). California's conflict-of-laws rule, in turn, treats immunity as a matter of status and refers back to the law of the parties' domicile (Wisconsin). Therefore, Wisconsin law applies anyway. The majority's fundamental change in law was unnecessary and made without the benefit of full briefing, and it creates new policy problems, such as requiring Wisconsin courts to enforce the immunity laws of other states when non-residents are injured in Wisconsin.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift away from the rigid, territorial-based First Restatement approach of lex loci delicti (law of the place of wrong) for choice of law in torts. By re-characterizing interspousal immunity as an issue of family law rather than tort law, the court adopted a form of interest analysis, applying the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the specific issue. This case is a key example of the judicial movement towards more modern, flexible choice-of-law methodologies that prioritize state policy interests over geographical location. The ruling dismantled a long-standing precedent and signaled a willingness to evolve legal doctrines to achieve what the court viewed as a more logical and just outcome.
