Mountjoy v. Mountjoy

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Mountjoy v. Mountjoy

206 A.2d 733, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 154

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1965

Docket3617

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 206 A.2d 733 (Mountjoy v. Mountjoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mountjoy v. Mountjoy, 206 A.2d 733, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 154 (D.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant wife sued her husband for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while she was a passenger in an automobile negligently operated by him in the District of Columbia. This appeal followed a summary judgment for the husband in the trial court on the ground of interspousal immunity from liability for tortious acts of one against the other.

The common law rule forbids a wife to sue her husband for any tort committed against her and has been held to be unaffected by the Married Women’s Act (D.C.Code 1961, § 30-208). Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.S. 611, 31 S.Ct. 111, 54 L.Ed. 1180 (1910); Yellow Cab Co. of D.C. v. Dreslin, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 181 F.2d 626, 19 A.L.R.2d 1001 (1950); Rommel v. West American Insurance Co., D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 683 (1960). We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment under the existing law of the District of Columbia.

Despite the fact that a majority of the jurisdictions still upholds the doctrine of interspousal immunity and that there has been no change in its applicability in the District of Columbia, appellant urges that the fundamental bases for the doctrine now no longer exist and that there is a definite trend toward adoption of the minority rule eliminating the bar to any tort action between husband and wife. Any change in this long-established doctrine in the District of Columbia should be accomplished by Congressional enactment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant wife sued her husband for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while she was a passenger in an automobile negligently operated by him in the District of Columbia. This appeal followed a summary judgment for the husband in the trial court on the ground of interspousal immunity from liability for tortious acts of one against the other.

The common law rule forbids a wife to sue her husband for any tort committed against her and has been held to be unaffected by the Married Women’s Act (D.C.Code 1961, § 30-208). Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.S. 611, 31 S.Ct. 111, 54 L.Ed. 1180 (1910); Yellow Cab Co. of D.C. v. Dreslin, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 181 F.2d 626, 19 A.L.R.2d 1001 (1950); Rommel v. West American Insurance Co., D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 683 (1960). We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment under the existing law of the District of Columbia.

Despite the fact that a majority of the jurisdictions still upholds the doctrine of interspousal immunity and that there has been no change in its applicability in the District of Columbia, appellant urges that the fundamental bases for the doctrine now no longer exist and that there is a definite trend toward adoption of the minority rule eliminating the bar to any tort action between husband and wife. Any change in this long-established doctrine in the District of Columbia should be accomplished by Congressional enactment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.2d 733, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mountjoy-v-mountjoy-dc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack