Blickenstaff v. Blickenstaff

Indiana Court of Appeals

Blickenstaff v. Blickenstaff

167 N.E. 146, 89 Ind. App. 529, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 188

Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided July 5, 1929·No. No. 13,485.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

Complaint by appellant against her husband for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident received while riding with her husband.

The demurrer was correctly sustained to the complaint for the reason that a married woman cannot sue her husband for personal injuries caused by his negligence. Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287, 289, 44 N. E. 462, 32 L. R. A. 848; Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co. (1928), 249 N. Y. 253, 164 N. E. 42; Thompson v. Thompson (1910), 218 U. S. 611, 31 Sup. Ct. 111, 54 L. Ed. 1180, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153; Austin v. Austin (1924), 136 Miss. 61, 100 So. 591, 33 A. L. R. 1388; Perlman v. Brooklyn City R. Co. (1921), 117 Misc. Rep. 353, 191 N. Y. Supp. 891; Heyman v. Heyman (1917), 19 Ga. App. 634, 92 S. E. 25; Peters v. Peters (1909), 156 Cal. 32, 103 Pac. 319, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699; Woltman v. Woltman (1922), 153 Minn. 217, 189 N. W. 1022.

Affirmed.

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

McMahan, C. J.

Complaint by appellant against her husband for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident received while riding with her husband.

The demurrer was correctly sustained to the complaint for the reason that a married woman cannot sue her husband for personal injuries caused by his negligence. Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287, 289, 44 N. E. 462, 32 L. R. A. 848; Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co. (1928), 249 N. Y. 253, 164 N. E. 42; Thompson v. Thompson (1910), 218 U. S. 611, 31 Sup. Ct. 111, 54 L. Ed. 1180, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153; Austin v. Austin (1924), 136 Miss. 61, 100 So. 591, 33 A. L. R. 1388; Perlman v. Brooklyn City R. Co. (1921), 117 Misc. Rep. 353, 191 N. Y. Supp. 891; Heyman v. Heyman (1917), 19 Ga. App. 634, 92 S. E. 25; Peters v. Peters (1909), 156 Cal. 32, 103 Pac. 319, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699; Woltman v. Woltman (1922), 153 Minn. 217, 189 N. W. 1022.

Affirmed.

Blickenstaff v. Blickenstaff, 167 N.E. 146, 89 Ind. App. 529, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

167 N.E. 146 (Blickenstaff v. Blickenstaff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related