Donsbach v. Offield, 11965

Citation488 S.W.2d 494
Decision Date13 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 11965,11965
PartiesFlorence Marie DONSBACH, Appellant, v. Joe OFFIELD et al., Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas

Harold L. Coit, Austin, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellees.

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice.

Appellant, defendant below, is Florence Marie Donsbach, independent executrix of the estate of Bowen Smith, deceased. The appellees, plaintiffs below, are Joe Offield and Wanda Sue (Offield) Clayton, brother and sister.

In March of 1970, Bowen Smith and his wife, Olga Josephine (Offield) Smith were found shot to death in their home in Austin, Texas. Appellees, Joe Offield and Wanda Sue (Offield) Clayton were the children of Olga Josephine (Offield) Smith by a prior marriage and were her only surviving heirs at law. They brought suit, under Article 4671 et seq. Vernon's Civ.St., against the estate of Bowen Smith for damages, both compensatory and exemplary, for wrongful death on the theory that Bowen Smith murdered Olga Smith and then took his own life.

The trial court, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment awarding appellees, jointly five thousand dollars actual damages and five thousand dollars exemplary damages. Later, on proper motion, the trial court modified its judgment, awarding appellees, jointly, the sum of five thousand dollars as actual damages but denying any recovery for exemplary damages.

We reverse this judgment and herein render judgment that appellees take nothing by their suit.

The first question before us is whether these statutory beneficiaries have a cause of action. Under the prevailing law in this state, we hold that they do not.

This result is made necessary by Article 4672 V.C.S., in conjunction with the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity. Article 4672 denies the beneficiaries a death action unless the deceased himself would have had a cause of action to recover for his own personal injuries had he or she survived the damaging event. In this case Olga Josephine Smith, had she survived the murderous assault, would have been denied an action against Bowen Smith by the well established doctrine of interspousal tort immunity. Nickerson and Matson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281 (1886). In the current posture of the law in this state, the victim's disability extends also to the beneficiaries, through Article 4672 V.C.S. and they also are foreclosed. Wilson v. Brown, 154 S.W. 322 (Tex.Civ.App.1913, writ ref. n.r.e.); Childs v. Childs, 107 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.Civ.App.1937, no writ history). Whether such result is wise, or whether the Legislature intended that the death action be limited in this manner it is the law and we are bound by it.

The doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is well entrenched in out jurisprudence rightly or wrongly. This is true regardless whether the tort was negligent or intentional Nickerson and Matson v. Nickerson, Supra; Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1965); Lunt v. Lunt, 121 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Civ.App.1938, writ ref.); McGlothlin v. McGlothlin, 476 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref. n.r.e.); Comment: Intra Family Immunity--The Doctrine and Its Present Status, 20 Baylor L.Rev. 27 (Winter 1968).

It should be noted, however, that while the majority of jurisdictions in this country have retained the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity generally, there is a growing minority which have either abrogated it altogether or have severely limited it. Particularly under facts such as are presented in this case, i.e., use of the immunity as a bar to a death action, has the doctrine been criticized. Furthermore, we think it not insignificant that the proponderance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Octubre 1992
    ...writ) (recovery precluded by Texas comparative negligence statute because decedent's negligence greater than tortfeasor's); Donsbach v. Offield, 488 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1972, no writ) (action barred by interspousal immunity); Wentzel v. Neurenberg, 314 S.W.2d 855, 860-61 (......
  • Merenoff v. Merenoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 1 Junio 1978
    ...30 L.Ed.2d 788 (1972) (applying Virgin Islands law); Monk v. Ramsey, 223 Tenn. 247, 443 S.W.2d 653 (Sup.Ct.1969); Donsbach v. Offield, 488 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1972). Most have abrogated the concept in varying degrees. For example, many permit suit where the marriage has been terminat......
  • Robertson v. McKnight's Estate, 1269
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 13 Diciembre 1979
    ...marriage. A suit for personal torts by one spouse against the other would disrupt the marital and family relationships. Donsbach v. Offield, 488 S.W.2d 494, 495-96 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1972, no writ); McGlothlin v. McGlothlin, 476 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1972, writ ref'd n......
  • Bounds v. Caudle
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 31 Marzo 1977
    ...damages and that part of the tort judgment must be reversed and rendered. The reasons for this result were ably pointed out in Donsbach v. Offield, 488 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1972, no writ). And in our discussion here, we have borrowed liberally from the reasoning and phrasing set ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT