Jackson et ux. v. Jackson.

• Court: Pennsylvania District and County Court
• Writing for the Court: Arird
• Citation: 18D.&C.553
• Docket Number: June T., 1930, No. 14.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1932
• Parties: Jackson et ux. v. Jackson.

18 D.&C. 553

Jackson et ux. v. Jackson.

June T., 1930, No. 14.

The Judicial Districts of Pennsylvania.

October 3, 1932.

Husband and wife — Injuries to wife caused by husband's negligence — Recovery against husband's employer — Joinder in action by husband.

1. A married woman may maintain an action of trespass against her husband's employer for personal injuries sustained by her as a result of her husband's negligence in the course of his employment.

2. The husband may not join as party plaintiff in such an action to recover the amount which he has been compelled to expend by reason of his wife's injuries, the accident having been caused by his own negligence.

Affidavit of defense raising questions of law. C.P. Warren Co.

Frank J. Lyons, for plaintiffs; Alexander & Clark, for defendant.

ARIRD, P.J., October 3, 1932.

On June 20, 1932, plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim, wherein the plaintiffs alleged:

1. Charles E. Jackson and Nora Jackson (plaintiffs) are husband and wife, residing in the Township of Brokenstraw, Warren County, Pa.

2. Lucy M. Jackson resides at the same place.

3. The defendant, Lucy M. Jackson, at the time of this occurrence owned an automobile.

4. On or about October 20, 1929, the defendant employed one of the plaintiffs, Charles E. Jackson, to drive defendant's automobile from the village of Irvine, Warren County, Pa., to Jamestown, N.Y., a distance of about 26 miles, for the purpose of making a sale of some property owned by the defendant in said City of Jamestown, N.Y.

5. The defendant invited Nora Jackson, one of the plaintiffs, to accompany herself and Charles E. Jackson on a trip to Jamestown.

6. The said trip to Jamestown, N.Y., was for the purpose of transacting business for the defendant.

7. On said date, to wit, October 20, 1929, Charles E. Jackson was driving the automobile on the return trip from Jamestown, N.Y., to Irvine, Pa., and also Nora Jackson, one of the plaintiffs, and Lucy M. Jackson, the defendant, were riding in said automobile.

8. The plaintiff alleges that the said Charles E. Jackson operated and drove defendant's automobile in such a negligent manner that the said defendant's automobile collided with and came in contact with an automobile proceeding in a northerly direction, wherein and whereby defendant's automobile turned abruptly to the left and crossed the public highway and collided with great force with a telephone pole, thereby resulting in great injury and damage to the said Nora Jackson, one of these plaintiffs, whereby the said Nora Jackson was severely injured, etc.

9. The plaintiff further alleges that all of the injuries and damages were the result of the negligence of the said Charles E. Jackson, the agent of the said Lucy M. Jackson, this defendant.

10. The plaintiff, Charles E. Jackson, claims for the money he has expended and is liable to expend for the treatment and care of his wife, the said Nora Jackson, the sum of $500, and the said Nora Jackson, plaintiff, claims for the injuries received, disfigurement, etc., the sum of $1,000.

On July 15, 1932, the defendant filed a demurrer raising questions of law. Of course, when a demurrer is filed raising questions of law, it virtually admits that the allegations in plaintiff's statement are facts. Now the questions raised are:

1. That Charles E. Jackson cannot recover from the defendant as a result of his own negligence.

2. That the said Nora Jackson cannot recover from the defendant, Lucy M. Jackson, for the reason that she was at the time of the accident the wife of Charles E. Jackson, and consequently the accident occurred and the injuries received by Nora Jackson were caused by the carelessness or negligence of her husband, Charles E. Jackson.

The defendant in filing this demurrer takes the position that under the law of the State of Pennsylvania a married woman cannot maintain an action in trespass against her husband. The husband's negligence is not disputed. Of course the employer, Lucy M. Jackson, would have been liable if the servant, the driver of the automobile in question, had been a stranger to the plaintiff. The real question now raised is whether or not the rule of liability is different where the servant is the husband. It has frequently been held that a husband may not maintain an action against his wife nor a wife against her husband for personal injuries, whether caused by negligence or not.

We appreciate the fact that there are cases cited, similar to the instant case, wherein it was held that a wife could maintain an action in trespass, and, further, we appreciate that it is the law that a wife cannot sue her husband for negligence, but in our opinion it is a different question in the case at bar. We have decisions cited where a wife has a right to sue her husband's master, i.e., in case the wife is injured by the negligence of her husband. It has been held by our courts that a married woman riding as a guest with permission of...