Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Bissonnette v. Bissonnette

Bissonnette v. Bissonnette

142 A.2d 527, 145 Conn. 733
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMay 27, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 142 A.2d 527 (Bissonnette v. Bissonnette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 142 A.2d 527, 145 Conn. 733 (Colo. 1958).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. They are residents of this state. While in Massachusetts on August 29, 1956, an automobile [734]*734owned and operated by the defendant was involved in an accident. His wife, a passenger in the car, was injured. She brought suit against her husband in the Superior Court to recover for her injuries. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that under the laws of Massachusetts suits between husband and wife are not authorized and, since no cause of action arose in that state, the suit could not be prosecuted here. Prom the judgment rendered upon her failure to plead over, the plaintiff has appealed.

The creation and. extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed. In this case it is the law of Massachusetts. If the wife could not sue her husband in Massachusetts, she could not maintain an action in this state to enforce a right which did not exist there. We are dealing with a substantive right. The Massachusetts law provides that married women may sue and be sued as though single, but suits between husband and wife are not authorized. Mass. Ann. Laws c. 209, § 6 (1955); Callow v. Thomas, 322 Mass. 550, 551, 78 N.E.2d 637. As the plaintiff never had a cause of action in Massachusetts, she has none here. Bohenek v. Niedzwiecki, 142 Conn. 278, 282, 113 A.2d 509, and cases cited therein.

There is no error.

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

Related

O'Connor v. O'Connor
492 A.2d 207 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co.
707 F.2d 671 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Katherine H. Saloomey, Administratrix, Estate of Willard Vernon Wahlund, Deceased v. Jeppesen & Co., Peter C. Halstead, Administrator, Estate of Erik F. Wahlund, Deceased v. Jeppesen & Co.
707 F.2d 671 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Halstead v. United States
535 F. Supp. 782 (D. Connecticut, 1982)
K-Mart Corp. v. Midcon Realty Group of Connecticut, Ltd.
489 F. Supp. 813 (D. Connecticut, 1980)
Saharceski v. Marcure
366 N.E.2d 1245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)
Gibson v. Fullin
374 A.2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Brown v. MERROW MACHINE COMPANY
411 F. Supp. 1162 (D. Connecticut, 1976)
Patch v. Stanley Works
448 F.2d 483 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Mildred A. Patch, Administratrix of the Estate of Parker P. Patch, and Cross-Appellant v. The Stanley Works (Stanley Chemical Company Division) and Thomas Keller, and Cross-Appellees. Joseph A. Soucy v. Thomas Keller and the Stanley Works
448 F.2d 483 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Menczer v. Menczer
280 A.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971)
Teitelman v. Bloomstein
236 A.2d 900 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967)
Murray v. City of Milford
380 F.2d 468 (Second Circuit, 1967)
Parks v. BALDWIN PIANO AND ORGAN COMPANY
262 F. Supp. 515 (D. Connecticut, 1967)
Landers v. Landers
216 A.2d 183 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)
Wolozin v. Wolozin
182 A.2d 8 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1962)
McQuaide v. Bridgeport Brass Company
190 F. Supp. 252 (D. Connecticut, 1960)
Robinson v. Gaines
331 S.W.2d 653 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1960)
Morin v. Letourneau
156 A.2d 131 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 A.2d 527, 145 Conn. 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bissonnette-v-bissonnette-conn-1958.