Fisher v. Toler
Decision Date | 15 May 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 43982,43982 |
Citation | 194 Kan. 701,401 P.2d 1012 |
Parties | Margaret Kathryn FISHER, Appellant, v. Eugene Milton TOLER, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The rule in this state is that neither spouse may maintain an action in tort for damages against the other, and an exception to the rule is not created by the fact that a divorce action was pending or that the injury was intentionally inflicted.
Kent McCormick, Wichita, argued the cause, and Henry E. Martz, Clyde Wendelken, and Elliott Fry, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Byron Brainerd, Wichita, argued the cause, and Lawrence Weigand, Lawrence E. Curfman, Charles W. Harris, Orval J. Kaufman, J. Ruse McCarthy, Donald A. Bell, J. L. Weigand, Jr., Spencer L. Depew, Paul M. Buchanan, and Charles R. Moberly, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
This is an action by a wife to recover damages for an intentional personal injury inflicted by her husband pending a divorce action.
The facts presented in chronological order are as follows:
On October 19, 1962, the defendant, Eugene Milton Toler, filed an action for divorce against his wife, Margaret Kathryn Toler. On December 3, 1962, after being duly summoned, Margaret entered her appearance in the divorce action and Judge E. E. Sattgast entered an order directing Eugene and Margaret not to molest each other. On December 4, 1962, Eugence drove his automobile against the automobile of Margaret with the alleged intention of killing her, resulting in her serious injury.
On February 7, 1963, Margaret was awarded a divorce decree on her amended cross-petition.
On October 11, 1963, more than six months after the granting of the absolute decree of divorce, Margaret commenced this action against Eugene for damages. In her petition she specifically alleged:
Defendant filed his answer and plaintiff replied.
The specific allegations of the pleadings are not material to a determination of the legal question presented for appellate review. After joinder of issues the defendant filed the following motion:
'COMES NOW the above-named defendant and moves the Court for judgment upon the pleadings filed herein and/or pursuant to G.S.1949 60-2704 and 60-2902 for the determination of a question of law prior to trial of the above-entitled action on the issue of facts, movant contending the issue of law to be:
'Whether in the State of Kansas a wife may maintain an action in tort for personal injuries or property damage against the husband allegedly arising out of acts of the husband occurring during the existence of the marriage?'
After consideration of well prepared briefs submitted by both parties the trial court entered judgment in which it concluded:
'* * * the Court finds that in the State of Kansas a wife may not maintain an action in tort for personal injuries or property damage against the husband allegedly arising out of actions of the husband occurring during the existence of the marriage and that judgment for the defendant should be entered upon the pleadings filed herein.'
Thereupon plaintiff perfected the instant appeal.
Appellant first contends that the case of Sink v. Sink 172 Kan. 217, 239 P.2d 933, should be overruled as in violation of G.S.1949, 23-203, Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, and the spirit of Section 6 of Article 15 of the Kansas Constitution. In Sink v. Sink, supra, we held:
'Neither spouse may maintain an action in tort for damages against the other.' (Syl.)
The opinion in that case considered the statute and constitutional provisions which the appellant has again attempted to raise. We adhere to the conclusion reached in the Sink case and it would serve no useful purpose to extend this opinion by again reiterating what was there said and held. The Sink case was cited with approval in the recent case of O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 645, 396 P.2d 285. Readers who desire to review the more recent decisions on the general rule announced in the Sink case are referred to 43 A.L.R.2d Anno., 632 to 671, incl. For additional annotations see A.L.R.2d Supplement Service for 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964.
Appellant suggests without further argument that:
Conceding that the facts in the case at bar...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Wichita State University
...in Shade v. Cement Co., 93 Kan. 257, 144 P. 249, it was held a workmen's compensation act does not violate Section 18. In Fisher v. Toler, 194 Kan. 701, 401 P.2d 1012, it was held that despite Section 18 neither spouse may maintain an action in tort for damages against the other. The interp......
-
Nocktonick v. Nocktonick, 50495
...harmony. We have repeatedly affirmed that policy decision in O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Fisher v. Toler, 194 Kan. 701, 401 P.2d 1012 (1965); and Miles v. West, 224 Kan. 284, 580 P.2d 876 (1978). We have not accepted the argument that liability insurance eliminates ......
-
Guffy, By and through Reeves v. Guffy
...it was a personal property right held before marriage and could be retained and prosecuted after the marriage. In Fisher v. Toler, 194 Kan. 701, 401 P.2d 1012 (1965), a divorce action was pending between the husband and wife when the personal injuries were inflicted. This court held that ne......
-
Flagg v. Loy
...of her marriage and remains her "sole and separate property." O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. at 648-49, 396 P.2d 285. In Fisher v. Toler, 194 Kan. 701, 401 P.2d 1012 (1965), interspousal tort immunity was upheld even though a divorce action was pending when the personal injuries occurred. In Mi......