Fiedeer v. Fiedeer
Decision Date | 12 May 1914 |
Docket Number | Case Number: No. 3284 |
Citation | 1914 OK 672,140 P. 1022,42 Okl. 124 |
Parties | FIEDEER v. FIEDEER. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
¶0 It is the policy of our Constitution and statutes to open the doors of the courts of justice to every person without distinction or discrimination for redress of wrongs and reparation for injuries; and, under our Constitution and statutes, a married woman may maintain an action for injuries to either her natural or statutory rights the same as though she were a feme sole, including an action against a former husband for a tort maliciously inflicted during coverture.
In an action by a wife against a former husband for injuries received from a gunshot wound maliciously inflicted by the husband during coverture, the fact that such wounds were inflicted in such manner during coverture constitutes no defense to the action.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Oklahoma County
Reardon and Hereford, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Charles H. Garnett, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was begun in the district court of Oklahoma county by Mattie Fiedeer against John Fiedeer for damages resulting from personal injuries, upon a petition which in part is as follows: "That on, to wit, the 28th day of February, 1911, at Oklahoma City in said county, the defendant unlawfully, violently, maliciously, and feloniously did assault the plaintiff with a shotgun loaded with powder and buckshot, and did therewith shoot the plaintiff upon the top and side of her head, and did thereby inflict dangerous and painful wounds and injuries upon the plaintiff, by reason of which plaintiff suffered great bodily and mental pain and anguish, and became and was and still is sick, injured, and disabled from working, and will continue to suffer pain and to be disabled from working for the remainder of her life, all to her damage in the sum of $4,800, and further, by reason of which, the plaintiff was compelled to and did expend a large sum of money for nursing, medicine, and medical treatment in endeavoring to be healed and cured of the said wounds and injuries, to wit, the sum of $200, to her further damage in the sum of $200." She also claimed punitive damages on account of humiliation and mental suffering in the sum of $5,000.
¶2 The defendant answered as follows:
¶3 Plaintiff demurred to the second and third paragraphs of the answer for the reason that they failed to state a defense to plaintiff's cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer. Defendant refused to plead further, stood upon his answer, and appealed to this court upon the one proposition that an action by neither husband nor wife will lie against the other for a tort committed during coverture. This brings us to a question which, especially under modern jurisprudence, has been the occasion of much profound reasoning and of an equal amount of sophistry. Many carefully reasoned, though we cannot say well reasoned, cases are cited in support of plaintiff in error's contention. From an examination of the authorities cited, they appear to us as in a great measure controlled by the common-law rule under which the entity of the wife was completely lost in the husband. But modern Legislatures, though vainly, it seems, have by plain, explicit, and unambiguous language attempted to break away from the common-law rule and to put the courts out of hearing of the still lingering echoes of barbaric days. The ground upon which the stronger of the more modern decisions have denied one's spouse the right to maintain an action for tort against the other during coverture have been in the main, based upon public policy, reasoning that to maintain such an action would tend to invade the holy sanctity of the home and shatter the sacred relations between husband and wife, and that therefore, for public policy's sake, such actions should not be maintained; and yet those very decisions, in support of their philosophy, hold that the civil courts are open to parties seeking divorce and alimony, and that the criminal courts are open for the prosecution of either husband or wife for assault and battery, cudgelings, or for shooting each other with shotguns. We fail to feel the force of such philosophy. We fail to comprehend wherein public policy sustains a greater injury by allowing a wife compensation for being disabled for life by the brutal assault of a man with whom she has been unfortunately linked for life than it would be to allow her to go into a criminal court and prosecute him and send him to the penitentiary for such assault.
¶4 Nor are we able to perceive wherein the sensitive nerves of society are worse jarred by such a proceeding than it would be to allow the parties to go into a divorce court and lay bare every act of their marriage relation in order to obtain alimony. But, aside from the philosophy on the one side or the other, it appears to us that the plain English language of our Constitution and statutes should enable us to determine what the rights of a married woman are intended to be in such cases. Section 6, art. 2, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, provides: "The courts of justice of the state shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice." From the language of this section of the Bill of Rights, it appears to us that the framers of our Constitution clearly intended to open...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Apitz v. Dames
-
Lorang v. Hays, 7514
... ... to her person or character against her husband or former ... husband. Courtney v. Courtney, 1938, 184 Okl. 395, ... 87 P.2d 660; Fiedeer v. Fiedeer, 1914, 42 Okl. 124, ... 140 P. 1022, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 189; Steele v. Steele, ... U.S.D.C.1946, 65 F.Supp. 329; Rains v. Rains, ... 1935, ... ...
-
Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.
...190, cert. denied, 2004 OK 52, 94 P.3d 80 (2004), released for publication by order of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma (2004). 98. Fiedeer v. Fiedeer, 1914 OK 672, ¶ 0, 42 Okla. 124, 140 P. 99. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co., 1989 OK 139, ¶ 16, 782 P.2d 915; Reeves v. Ille E......
-
Courtney v. Courtney
...or malice on the part of her wrong-doing spouse? In anticipation of our perception that any distinction between the case at bar and Fiedler v. Fiedler, supra, is apparent than real, the defense counsel charge the decision in that case with being contrary to the numerical weight of authority......