Gotsch v. Gotsch

• Decision Date: 19 June 1973
• Citation: 63 N.J. 217,306 A.2d 433
• Parties: John W. GOTSCH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gail GOTSCH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 217

63 N.J. 217

306 A.2d 433

John W. GOTSCH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gail GOTSCH, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued April 24, 1973.

Decided June 19, 1973.

Frank G. Basile, Vineland, for defendant-appellant (Kavesh & Basile, Vineland, attorneys).

Jay H. Greenblatt, Vineland, for plaintiff-respondent (Greenblatt & Greenblatt, Vineland, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

This Court held in Darrow v. Hanover Township, 58 N.J. 410, 278 A.2d 200 (1971) that the abrogation of the interspousal immunity rule in automobile negligence actions previously announced in Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 267 A.2d 481 (1970) would be prospective, and thus 'available only to persons suffering injuries in automobile accidents occurring after July 10, 1970, the date Immer was decided.' 58 N.J. at 420, 278 A.2d at 205. The present case concerns whether Darrow applies to bar a suit for alleged injuries suffered in an accident on July 5, 1970, when the parties did not marry until after the date of the Immer decision.

The Cumberland County Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and held that suit was not barred for an antenuptial tort occurring prior to the Immer decision. 121 N.J.Super. 479, 297 A.2d 869 (1971). The Appellate Division affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the County Court's opinion, and also expressly rejected the conclusion reached in Berry v. Berry, 120 N.J.Super. 452, 294 A.2d 886 (1972) by another Appellate Division panel that suit was barred in a similar situation involving a pre-Immer antenuptial tort. 121 N.J.Super. 454, 297 A.2d 857 (1972). We certified the matter in order to resolve the conflict between the decisions. 62 N.J. 259, 300 A.2d 343 (1973).

We affirm the judgment of the courts below in the present case substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Staller of the Cumberland County Court, 121 N.J.Super. 479, 297 A.2d 869 and hold that a plaintiff may sue his spouse for negligence in an antenuptial automobile accident occurring before July 10, 1970, where the policy considerations underlying our Darrow decision are absent.

Both Berry and the lower courts' opinions in the present case recognized that the principal policy reason given in Darrow for holding the abrogation of the interspousal immunity rule prospective was the unfair burden which would have been on insurance companies in defending against claims when those companies had justifiably relied on the interspousal immunity rule and consequently did not investigate accidents involving claims between married persons. The opinions in both cases further recognized that this burden ordinarily was not present in suits based on accidents occurring prior to the marriage of the parties. When the parties were unmarried at the time of the accident, the insurance company normally would have no reason to believe that the interspousal immunity rule would be available to bar the suit. Therefore, investigation of the accident and processing of the claim would proceed in normal course, and the insurance company would not be placed at a disadvantage in defending against claims for antenuptial torts arising prior to the date of the Immer decision.

Although the Appellate Division in Berry conceded that the policy considerations supporting Darrow were not present in a suit based on an antenuptial automobile accident, the court relied, as does the defendant here, on Koplik v. C.P. Trucking Corp., 27 N.J. 1, 141 A.2d 34 (1958). In Koplik a majority of this Court first reaffirmed the interspousal immunity rule, principally on the ground that the Married Persons Act, N.J.S.A. 37:2--1 et seq., demonstrated the legislative intention to continue the common law ban on tort suits between spouses. The Koplik majority then stated that the...