Mertz v. Mertz
3 N.E.2d 597, 271 N.Y. 466, 108 A.L.R. 1120 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The law of the forum state governs the capacity of parties to sue, and its courts will not enforce a foreign cause of action if doing so would violate the forum's established public policy as found in its constitution, statutes, or judicial records.
Facts:
- The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were residents of New York.
- While in the State of Connecticut, the wife sustained personal injuries.
- The wife's injuries were allegedly caused by her husband's negligent operation of an automobile he owned and controlled.
- Under the law of Connecticut, a husband is liable to his wife for personal injuries caused by his negligence.
- Under the law of New York at the time, a husband was immune from liability for personal injuries caused to his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed a lawsuit against her husband in a New York trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint.
- The wife appealed to the Appellate Division, which acted as the intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint.
- The wife, as appellant, appealed the affirmance to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 New York's public policy, which grants spouses immunity from personal injury lawsuits brought by each other, prevent a New York court from enforcing a cause of action for such an injury that arose in Connecticut, a state where the suit is permitted?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, J.
Yes. New York's public policy of interspousal immunity prevents its courts from enforcing this cause of action. The law of the forum (New York) determines the capacity of parties to sue and be sued. New York law attaches a reciprocal disability to the marital status that precludes one spouse from suing the other for personal injuries. While a cause of action may be transitory, a party seeking to enforce it in New York can only use the remedies available under New York law and is subject to its limitations. Another state's law cannot remove a disability to sue that New York law imposes on its own residents in its own courts.
Dissenting - Crouch, J.
No. New York's policy of interspousal immunity is not strong enough to bar enforcement of the foreign right. A court should only refuse to enforce a foreign right if it violates a 'strong public policy' related to fundamental justice or public welfare, not merely because the forum's law is different. The New York rule of interspousal immunity is a 'vestigial' common law remnant that embodies no tenable policy of morals or social welfare and is an insufficient basis to deny a valid cause of action created by Connecticut law. The controlling public policy should be to give effect to valid causes of action from other states except in extreme cases.
Analysis:
This decision represents a traditional approach to conflict of laws, prioritizing the forum state's procedural rules and public policy over the substantive law of the state where the tort occurred. It classifies the capacity to sue as a procedural matter governed by the law of the forum (lex fori), rather than a substantive right governed by the law of the place of the wrong (lex loci delicti). This ruling reinforces the power of a state to close its courthouse doors to claims it deems contrary to its own legal traditions, even when the underlying act was legally actionable elsewhere. This approach has since been criticized and largely replaced in many jurisdictions, including New York, by more flexible 'interest analysis' frameworks.
