## Facts

- Clifford Freehe sued his wife, Hazel Freehe, for negligence after he was injured while operating a tractor on a farm owned as Hazel’s separate property.
- The tractor and the farm’s assets and income were alleged to be Hazel’s separate property, and the farming operation was alleged to be separate from any community business.
- Clifford alleged he had no ownership interest in, and was not employed by, the farming operation.
- The complaint alleged Hazel negligently maintained the tractor and failed to warn of its unsafe condition, causing Clifford’s injuries.
- Apart from the marital relationship, the claim was an ordinary personal injury tort action.

## Issues

1. Whether the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity barred a negligence action for personal injuries by one spouse against the other.
2. Whether summary judgment was properly granted solely on the basis of interspousal tort immunity.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court abolished interspousal tort immunity in personal injury cases.
- The court reversed the summary judgment entered for Hazel.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of Clifford’s negligence claim.
- The court rejected traditional rationales for immunity, including marital “unity,” preservation of domestic harmony, reliance on criminal or divorce remedies, fear of increased litigation, and concerns about collusion and insurance fraud.
- The court held it could change the doctrine because it was judge-made common law rather than a legislative rule.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse may sue the other spouse in tort for personal injuries; the prior common-law disability to sue is abolished.
- Marital “unity” is not a valid basis for denying a spouse access to tort remedies under modern law.
- Preserving marital harmony does not justify a categorical bar on personal injury actions between spouses.
- Criminal prosecution and divorce are not adequate substitutes for tort compensation for physical injury and related losses.
- Potential collusion or insurance fraud is addressed through ordinary litigation safeguards, not by immunizing an entire class of defendants.
- Courts may modify or abandon judge-made common-law immunities without awaiting legislative action.

## Conclusion

The court eliminated interspousal tort immunity for personal injury actions in Washington, reversing a summary judgment that had barred a husband’s negligence claim against his wife and remanding for adjudication of the underlying tort allegations.


Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wn.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (Wash. 1972)