Heino v. Harper
1988 Ore. LEXIS 446, 759 P.2d 253, 306 Or. 347 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law doctrine of interspousal immunity is abolished in Oregon and no longer bars a person from bringing a negligence action against their spouse for personal injuries.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1982, Dorothy Heino was a passenger in an automobile driven by her husband, Arno Heino.
- In Portland, Arno Heino turned left into the path of an oncoming vehicle driven by Harper.
- The two vehicles collided as a result of the turn.
- Dorothy Heino sustained injuries in the collision.
- Dorothy Heino alleged that her husband was negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to maintain control of his vehicle, and failing to yield the right-of-way.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy Heino filed a complaint against her husband, Arno Heino, in a state trial court, alleging negligence.
- In his answer, Arno Heino asserted the defense of interspousal immunity.
- Arno Heino filed a motion for summary judgment based on the immunity defense.
- The trial court granted the motion and entered a final judgment in favor of Arno Heino.
- Dorothy Heino, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, after which the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
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 immunity bar a spouse from bringing a negligence action against the other spouse for personal injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, J.
No. The common-law rule of interspousal immunity is no longer available in Oregon to bar negligence actions between spouses. The court's previous adoption of the rule in Smith v. Smith was based on an archaic and questionable understanding of common law, which viewed spouses as a single legal entity. The traditional public policy rationales for the immunity—preserving marital harmony, preventing collusive lawsuits against insurers, and avoiding practical litigation difficulties—are no longer persuasive. The court rejects the notion that allowing such suits destroys marital harmony, as harmony is likely already damaged if one spouse is willing to sue the other. Furthermore, the judicial system is capable of detecting and dismissing collusive or fraudulent claims. While the intimate nature of the marital relationship may alter the standard of care or give rise to privileges, it does not justify a complete bar to recovery. Because the immunity doctrine was a judge-made rule, it is the court's responsibility to abrogate it when it is no longer sound, bringing Oregon in line with the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895F.
Analysis:
This decision formally abolishes the doctrine of interspousal immunity for negligent torts in Oregon, eliminating one of the last vestiges of status-based immunities in tort law. By doing so, the court brings Oregon law in line with the overwhelming modern trend across the United States. The case is significant for shifting the legal analysis away from whether a party has capacity to sue based on marital status, and toward the substantive question of whether the conduct itself was tortious. The ruling implies that while the marital relationship does not confer immunity, it remains a relevant factual circumstance for determining the applicable standard of care and potential defenses like privilege or consent.
