Bissonnette v. Bissonnette
| Decision Date | 27 May 1958 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Eloise BISSONNETTE v. Henry R. BISSONNETTE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Edward J. Daly, Jr., Hartford, with whom was Richard Levin, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Valentine J. Sacco, Hartford, with whom was Jerome I. Walsh, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ., and SHEA, Superior Court Judge.
The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. They are residents of this state. While in Massachusetts on August 29, 1956, an automobile owned and operated by the defendant was involved in an accident. His wife, a passenger in the car, was injured. She brought suit against her husband in the Superior Court to recover for her injuries. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that under the laws of Massachusetts suits between husband and wife are not authorized and, since no cause of action arose in that state, the suit could not be prosecuted here. From the judgment rendered upon her failure to plead over, the plaintiff has appealed.
The creation and extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed. In this case it is the law of Massachusetts. If the wife could not sue her husband in Massachusetts, she could not maintain an action in this state to enforce a right which did not exist there. We are dealing with a substantive right. The Massachusetts law provides that married women may sue and be sued as though single, but suits between husband and wife are not authorized. Mass.Ann.Laws c. 209, § 6 (1955); Callow v. Thomas, 322 Mass. 550, 551, 78 N.E.2d 637, 2 A.L.R.2d 632. As the plaintiff never had a cause of action in Massachusetts, she has none here. Bohenek v. Niedzwiecki, 142 Conn. 278, 282, 113 A.2d 509, and cases cited therein.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halstead v. United States
...to govern its award by that maximum limitation and the Court of Appeals affirmed by quoting language from Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 145 Conn. 733, 734, 142 A.2d 527, 528 (1958) which held that "the creation and extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tor......
-
Patch v. Stanley Works (Stanley Chemical Co. Div.), 663
...creation and extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed," Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 145 Conn. 733, 734, 142 A.2d 527, 528 (1958) (emphasis supplied). For choice of law purposes under Connecticut law, a tort is committed not where the wrong......
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Midcon Realty Group of Conn.
...creation and extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed." Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 145 Conn. 733, 734, 142 A.2d 527, 528 (1958). See also Gibson v. Fullin, 172 Conn. 407, 411, 374 A.2d 1061, 1064 (1977).2 Because, for choice of law purpos......
-
Teitelman v. Bloomstein
...creation and extent of liability in tort are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed.' Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 145 Conn. 733, 734, 142 A.2d 527, 528; Bohenek v. Niedzwiecki, 142 Conn. 278, 282, 113 A.2d 509; Gondek v. Pliska, 135 Conn. 610, 613, 67 A.2d 552. Under N......