## Facts

- Diana Townsend sued her husband, James E. Townsend, seeking damages for personal injuries after he shot her in the back with a shotgun while attempting to enter her residence.
- The petition alleged the shooting was intentional and malicious, undertaken with the purpose to seriously injure or kill, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- The husband asserted the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity as a complete bar to the tort action.

## Issues

1. Whether the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity bars a spouse’s civil action for personal injuries intentionally inflicted by the other spouse during marriage.
2. Whether the doctrine should be abolished, at least as to intentional torts, so that an injured spouse may pursue ordinary tort remedies.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for the husband.
- The court abolished interspousal tort immunity as a bar to claims for intentional torts.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the wife’s intentional tort claims.

## Legal Principles

- Interspousal tort immunity, derived from the historical “unity” concept that treated spouses as one legal person, lacks a sound modern basis where statutory reforms recognize spouses as separate legal actors.
- A marital relationship does not justify exempting an intentional tortfeasor from ordinary tort liability for personal injuries inflicted on a spouse.
- Policy rationales traditionally offered for immunity—preservation of marital harmony, avoidance of fraud or collusion, and preventing excessive litigation—do not justify a categorical bar to intentional-injury claims between spouses; ordinary procedural and evidentiary safeguards address those concerns.
- Missouri courts may compel compensation for intentional injuries regardless of the parties’ marital status; for intentional torts, interspousal immunity is not a defense.

## Conclusion

Missouri eliminated interspousal tort immunity for intentional torts, holding that a spouse may sue the other spouse for intentional personal injuries during marriage; summary judgment based solely on immunity was improper and the injured spouse’s claim was allowed to proceed on remand.


Townsend v. Townsend, 708 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. 1986) (en banc)