RUTH RAISEN, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILIP RAISEN AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A wife sued her husband for negligence damages from an automobile accident, but the trial court dismissed the complaint based on the interspousal immunity doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether interspousal immunity bars all spousal tort actions or only those where the traditional justifications for the doctrine apply.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal based on interspousal immunity, finding that Florida precedent still recognizes the doctrine as viable. However, the court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether interspousal immunity categorically bars spousal tort actions or permits them when traditional justifications do not apply.
[1] The doctrine of interspousal immunity precludes a tort action between husband and wife in Florida.
[2] Allegations that the traditional reasons for interspousal immunity are not present do not overcome the doctrine's application.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we are constrained to follow respectable precedent which indicates the doctrine of interspousal immunity is still viable in Florida”
Establishes that the court must follow existing precedent despite the appellant's arguments that the doctrine is outdated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff wife and defendant husband have been married for thirty-seven years and continue to live together. The wife was injured when the husband…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equal Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
The individual parties to this appeal are husband and wife and the issue involved is the application vel non of the interspousal immunity doctrine.
The appellant wife sued appellee husband for damages arising out of his operation of an automobile in such a negligent fashion as to injure the wife. The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of interspousal immunity and a final judgment was entered for appellees.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing this cause because 1) the allegations of the complaint demonstrate that the interspousal immunity doctrine is not applicable to this case, and 2) application of the interspousal immunity doctrine in such a way as to prohibit appellant from maintaining this suit violates her constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the parties have lived together as husband and wife for thirty-seven years and will continue to do so; the maintenance of this suit will not disrupt the peace and harmony of their home and marriage; the parties have not conspired to promote a fraudulent or collusive claim; the suit is not trivial but a result of severe injuries inflicted upon plaintiff; and the defendant insurance company is the real party in interest.
Appellant contends that on motion to dismiss the well pleaded allegations of her complaint must be taken as true. Thus, appellant argues that the traditional reasons giving rise to the concept of inter-spousal immunity are not existent in this case and that the complaint states a cause of action entitling appellant to relief. Appellant concludes by citing Prosser and numerous other authorities1 which suggest the doctrine is an anachronism which has long outlived its time.
Be that as it may, we are constrained to follow respectable precedent which indicates the doctrine of interspousal immunity is still viable in Florida.2 Any such change in the law as appellant urges is more properly the function of the Legislature or the Supreme Court. However, inasmuch as the question is a constantly recurring one and is one of great public interest, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida as one of great public interest:
Does the doctrine of interspousal immunity preclude a tort action between husband and wife in all cases or will such an action lie if it is alleged and proven that none of the traditional reasons supporting interspousal immunity are applicable?
The judgment for which this appeal is perfected is affirmed.
AFFIRMED, question certified.
MOORE, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 122 (4th Ed.1971); Bonner v. Williams, 370 F. 2d 301 (5th Cir. 1966); Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 26 Cal. Rptr. 102, 376 P. 2d 70 (1962).
. Bencomo v. Bencomo, 200 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1967); Horton v. Unigard Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Blanton v. Blanton, 354 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur with the court’s opinion as announced by Judge Downey and add my thought that it may be time our Supreme Court reconsider the entire interfamilial immunity doctrine in light of social development and change over the years since it was last considered. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979)…ALDERMAN, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Raisen v. Raisen, 370 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The district court has certified the following question for our consideration: Does the doctrine of interspousal immunity preclude a tort action between husband and wife in all cases or will such an action lie if it is alleged…
-
Simon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…on, 486 So. 2d at 557-58. In the present action, the wife could not obtain a recovery against her husband because of the doctrine of inter-spousal immunity. See Snowten v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1985); Raisen v. Raisen, 370 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), affirmed, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980). Since the insurer was subrogated to the husband’s substantive defense of interspousal immunity, the trial court was correct i…
-
Dykstra-Gulick v. Gulick, 604 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…DAUKSCH, Judge, concurring specially. As I did in Raisen v. Raisen, 370 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), approved, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), cert. den., 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980). I reluctantly concur because the supreme court has yet to act. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). [*1284] It is high…
Authorities Cited
- Carmela Bencomo v. Bencomo, 200 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1967)
- Horton v. Unigard INS., 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Ansel Blanton v. Blanton, 354 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Josiah Robins Bonner v. Williams, 370 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1966)