Bakke v. Webster

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Bakke v. Webster

759 P.2d 320, 92 Or. App. 581

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 17, 1988

Docket86C-11631; CA A43053

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 759 P.2d 320 (Bakke v. Webster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bakke v. Webster, 759 P.2d 320, 92 Or. App. 581 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant entered after the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff is barred from suing defendant because of interspousal immunity. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant when defendant lost control of the car, injuring plaintiff. Approximately one month later, plaintiff and defendant were married to each other. Plaintiff argues that, because the parties were not married at the time when his injuries occurred, interspousal immunity should not bar his action.

Although interspousal immunity barred an action between spouses for negligent torts when defendant’s motion was granted, Smith v. Smith, 205 Or 286, 287 P2d 572 (1955), whether the tort occurred before or during marriage, 205 Or at 288, the Supreme Court overruled Smith in Heino v. Harper, 306 Or 347, 759 P2d 253 (1988). Interspousal immunity for negligent torts is now abolished in Oregon.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant entered after the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff is barred from suing defendant because of interspousal immunity. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant when defendant lost control of the car, injuring plaintiff. Approximately one month later, plaintiff and defendant were married to each other. Plaintiff argues that, because the parties were not married at the time when his injuries occurred, interspousal immunity should not bar his action.

Although interspousal immunity barred an action between spouses for negligent torts when defendant’s motion was granted, Smith v. Smith, 205 Or 286, 287 P2d 572 (1955), whether the tort occurred before or during marriage, 205 Or at 288, the Supreme Court overruled Smith in Heino v. Harper, 306 Or 347, 759 P2d 253 (1988). Interspousal immunity for negligent torts is now abolished in Oregon.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 P.2d 320, 92 Or. App. 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakke-v-webster-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack