Price v. Price
732 S.W.2d 316 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of interspousal immunity, which bars one spouse from bringing a tort action against the other, is completely abolished in Texas.
Facts:
- In July 1983, Kimberly Parmenter was a passenger on a motorcycle driven by Duane Price.
- The motorcycle collided with a truck, causing injuries to Kimberly Parmenter.
- Six months after the motorcycle accident, Kimberly Parmenter and Duane Price married each other.
- Following their marriage, Kimberly Price initiated a lawsuit against her husband, Duane Price, alleging his negligence caused her injuries in the pre-marital accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly Price sued her husband, Duane Price, in a Texas trial court for negligence.
- Duane Price filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of interspousal immunity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Duane Price.
- Kimberly Price, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that existing precedent barred the suit.
- Kimberly Price, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 suing the other spouse for negligence that occurred prior to their marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Kilgarlin, J.
No. The doctrine of interspousal immunity does not bar a negligence lawsuit brought by one spouse against another. The historical justifications for the doctrine—the legal fiction of spousal unity, the preservation of marital harmony, and the prevention of collusive lawsuits—are no longer valid. The legal unity of spouses was abrogated by Married Women Acts, which gave wives individual legal identities. The argument that such lawsuits disrupt domestic tranquility is unpersuasive, as a home where a serious tort has occurred is already discordant, and denying a legal remedy is unlikely to restore peace. Finally, the judicial system is fully capable of detecting and addressing fraudulent or collusive claims, just as it does in other personal injury cases.
Concurring - Mauzy, J.
Justice Mauzy agreed wholeheartedly with the court's decision to abolish the doctrine but wrote separately to express outrage that the State Board of Insurance was simultaneously incorporating the same abolished principle into standard auto insurance policies. He noted that the Board prescribed a policy endorsement that expressly excludes liability coverage for intrafamily lawsuits. He argued this action by the Board lacks any rational justification and does not serve the interests of the people of Texas.
Analysis:
This landmark decision completely abrogates the doctrine of interspousal immunity in Texas, overturning a century of precedent. The ruling allows spouses to sue each other for any type of tort, including negligence, thereby aligning Texas with the modern trend in the majority of American jurisdictions. By rejecting the traditional rationales of preserving marital harmony and preventing collusion, the court established that the fundamental policy of providing legal redress for wrongs outweighs these outdated concerns. The decision's comprehensive abolition of the doctrine, rather than a narrow exception for vehicular torts, signals a broad commitment to equal protection and access to the courts for all individuals, regardless of marital status.
Unlock the full brief for Price v. Price