Price v. Price

Court of Appeals of Texas

Price v. Price

718 S.W.2d 65, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8848

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 17, 1986

Docket04-85-00579-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 718 S.W.2d 65 (Price v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Price v. Price, 718 S.W.2d 65, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8848 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

CADENA, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Kimberly Parmenter Price, appeals from a summary judgment denying her recovery from her husband, Duane Price, for personal injuries suffered by her prior to her marriage to defendant as a result of defendant’s negligence. We reluctantly affirm.

Generally, the doctrine of interspousal immunity bars recovery for personal injuries suffered by one spouse as the result of the negligence of the other spouse. Bounds v. Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925 (Texas 1977); Nickerson & Matson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281 (1886). While our Supreme Court in Bounds held the doctrine inapplicable in cases of intentional tort, it is clear that it adopted, as did the Nickerson court, the theory that the immunity doctrine was based on a public policy aimed at the preservation of marital peace and harmony. 560 S.W.2d at 927. Although neither courts nor commentators have satisfactorily explained how denying relief to the injured spouse will promote harmony, we are constrained to follow the unambiguous, if indefensible, precedent set by Nickerson and Bounds.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

OPINION

CADENA, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Kimberly Parmenter Price, appeals from a summary judgment denying her recovery from her husband, Duane Price, for personal injuries suffered by her prior to her marriage to defendant as a result of defendant’s negligence. We reluctantly affirm.

Generally, the doctrine of interspousal immunity bars recovery for personal injuries suffered by one spouse as the result of the negligence of the other spouse. Bounds v. Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925 (Texas 1977); Nickerson & Matson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281 (1886). While our Supreme Court in Bounds held the doctrine inapplicable in cases of intentional tort, it is clear that it adopted, as did the Nickerson court, the theory that the immunity doctrine was based on a public policy aimed at the preservation of marital peace and harmony. 560 S.W.2d at 927. Although neither courts nor commentators have satisfactorily explained how denying relief to the injured spouse will promote harmony, we are constrained to follow the unambiguous, if indefensible, precedent set by Nickerson and Bounds.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 S.W.2d 65, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 8848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-price-texapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack