Facts
- Dorothy M. Heino was a passenger in a car driven by her husband, Arno Heino, in north Portland.
- At an intersection, Arno turned left into the path of an oncoming car driven by Roy L. Harper, causing a collision.
- Dorothy was injured and sued both drivers for negligence.
- Against Arno, Dorothy alleged negligent failure to keep a proper lookout, maintain control, and yield the right-of-way.
- Arno asserted interspousal immunity as a defense to liability for negligent torts against his spouse.
Issues
- Whether Oregon should continue to recognize common-law interspousal immunity that bars a negligence action by one spouse against the other for personal injuries.
- Whether the asserted public-policy justifications for interspousal immunity support retaining the doctrine for negligent torts.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed the summary judgment for Arno and reversed the Court of Appeals’ affirmance.
- The court held that interspousal immunity is no longer available in Oregon to bar negligence actions between spouses.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, permitting Dorothy’s negligence claim against Arno to proceed.
Legal Principles
-
A judicially created common-law doctrine may be reexamined and abandoned when its supporting rationales no longer justify the rule.
-
Interspousal immunity for negligent torts is not supported by modern public-policy concerns, including:
- marital harmony (serious injury and fault often already strain the relationship, and denying a remedy does not preserve peace);
- fraud or collusion concerns (addressable through ordinary evidentiary rules, fact-finding, and insurer investigation rather than categorical immunity); and
- availability of other compensation mechanisms or insurance (not a sufficient basis for denying a tort remedy).
-
After this decision, spouses in Oregon may sue each other for negligence under ordinary tort principles without a blanket immunity bar.
Conclusion
The court abolished Oregon’s common-law interspousal immunity for negligent torts and allowed an injured spouse to maintain a negligence action against the other spouse, remanding the case for litigation on the merits.