Albert v. McGrath
Decision Date | 31 July 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2448-56. |
Citation | 165 F. Supp. 461 |
Parties | Earshlie I. ALBERT, Plaintiff, v. Margaret C. McGRATH. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
The present action is a suit filed by Mrs. Earshlie I. Albert against the defendant, Mrs. Margaret C. McGrath. The complaint is set forth in two counts —count one charging the defendant with having alienated the affections of the plaintiff's husband, Mr. Albert, and count two charging the defendant with having had criminal conversation with Mr. Albert.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict as to both counts of the complaint. This Court took the motion under advisement and required the defendant to offer her evidence. At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the defendant renewed her motion to dismiss, and the Court acting under Rule 50(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., continued the motion under advisement. After instruction to the jury, both issues were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict on count one of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000.00 but found for the defendant as to count two of the complaint. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. to which the plaintiff filed objection, and hearing was waived on this motion.
The defendant sets forth two contentions in support of her motion for a directed verdict as to count one of the complaint. Her first contention is that as a matter of law this action for alienation of affections cannot be maintained because the law of Maryland is the governing law, and that state has abolished such an action. Annotated Code of Maryland, Art. 75C. Her second point is that the plaintiff has not shown that the "loss of consortium" which is the gist of such an action was caused by the defendant.
Regarding her first point, defendant's argument is briefly this: The plaintiff and her husband were residents of Maryland at the time the alleged alienation of affections took place; the plaintiff has maintained her residence in Maryland to the present; and, the injury or damage complained of did not occur in the District of Columbia but rather in Maryland, which, as stated above, was the site of the home of the plaintiff and her husband. Defendant argues that since the basis for such an action is loss of consortium, this injury could occur only at the marital domicile and thus, the law of the marital domicile should apply. As previously pointed out, an application of Maryland law to the present situation would deprive this plaintiff of a cause of action for alienation of affections.
As stated previously, the gist of such an action is loss of consortium. Chief Justice Shepard in the case of Dodge v. Rush, 28 App.D.C. 149, at page 152 wrote the following:
The theory of such an action as this was originally the loss of services:
"* * * and in virtually all states, the wife is now given the same rights and remedies as the husband, either by specific statutes or by a more liberal interpretation of the Married Women's acts in recognition of social changes."
Thus, in many jurisdictions the common law disability that attached to women has been removed, and the right of a woman to sue in such an action as this has been recognized. Such is the law in the District of Columbia. Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 87 U.S.App. D.C. 57, 183 F.2d 811, 23 A.L.R.2d 1366.
The basic problem involved in the present case is one of conflicts of laws. The action is maintainable in the District of Columbia but has been abolished in the state of Maryland. Thus, it becomes necessary to determine which body of law is to govern the facts in this case. The factual basis for the existence of this conflict problem is that the acts or wrongs that effected the alienation took place in the District of Columbia, while the injury or damage, according to the defendant, took place in Maryland.
The general rule of law applicable in conflict situations in tort actions is stated in Orr v. Sasseman, 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 182, 186:
Also, "the place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place." Restatement, Conflicts of Law, Sec. 377.
The defendant, in addition to relying upon the general rule as stated above, also relies upon the case of Eastern Air Lines v. Union Trust Co., 95 U.S.App. D.C. 189, 221 F.2d 62, and upon the case of Bernstein v. National Broad-casting Co., D.C. 129 F.Supp. 817, affirmed at 98 U.S.App.D.C. 112, 232 F.2d 369. In the first of these cited cases, the court does no more than restate the general rule regarding tort situations coupled with a conflict of law question and states why the general rule does not apply in that case. The majority of the court held that the law of the state where the negligence or wrongful acts took place should measure the extent of the damages rather than the law of the District of Columbia where the injury actually took place. However, the basis for this ruling was an interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671-2680, which, the majority of the court held, disregarded the general rule by reason of its wording. The court, 221 F.2d at page 80, wrote:
In the second cited case relied upon by the defendant, Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, many issues were presented to the trial court—one of which being a conflict of law situation involving tort liability. The action was based on invasion of privacy by publication through a television broadcast. The publication was set in motion in New York with the acting of the story and transmission was completed in the District of Columbia. The trial court held that the impact took place in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff was when his feelings were wounded. Judge Richmond Keech, whose opinion the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia adopted, held that since the gravamen of the action is injury to the feelings of the plaintiff, the mental anguish and distress caused by publication and as this tort is a personal injury, "the question whether plaintiff has a cause of action on the facts stated by him should be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where he sustained the injury."
"Thus * * * although the publication was set in motion in New York with the acting of the story and the transmission was completed in the District of Columbia by WNBW, the harm did not occur until the impact of the telecast upon plaintiff, in whatever jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hutchins v. Day, 692
...Johnson, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 370; Thome v. Macken, 58 Cal.App.2d 76, 136 P.2d 116; Albert v. McGrath, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 278 F.2d 16; D.C., 165 F.Supp. 461, A.B. v. C.D., 36 F.Supp. 85; Calcin v. Milburn, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 946; Gaines v. Poindexter, D.C., 155 F.Supp. While we have been unab......
-
Conway v. Ogier
...importance. The decision was followed in Albert v. McGrath (1960), 107 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 278 F.2d 16, reversing the district court, 165 F.Supp. 461. Cf. Orr v. Sasseman (C.C.A.5, 1956), 239 F.2d It is apparent that a choice of law here involves competing state interests. In a society with f......
-
Albert v. McGrath, 14894.
...Trenerry v. Fravel, 1926, 56 App.D.C. 146, 10 F.2d 1011. 3 Dodge v. Rush, supra note 2, 28 App. D.C. at page 152. 4 See Albert v. McGrath, D.C.1958, 165 F.Supp. 461. 5 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188; Gaines v. Poindexter, D.C.W.D.La.1957, 155 F. Supp......