Juaire v. Juaire
| Decision Date | 02 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23-68,23-68 |
| Parties | Norma JUAIRE, by her mother and next friend, Loretta Record v. Duane JUAIRE. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Robert B. Eldredge, Montpelier, for plaintiff.
Wick, Dinse & Allen, Burlington, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
Pursuant to 12 VSA Sec. 2386, the following question has been submitted to this Court by the Chittenden County Court of Chancery:
Can a female who has sustained personal injuries in an accident in Vermont and who subsequently marries the tortfeasor, maintain an action to recover damages arising out of the accident against her tortfeasor husband?
The factual background of the cause submitted is relatively simple and undisputed. The parties to this suit were involved in a one-car accident in Brandon, Vermont, on December 29, 1964. On October 2, 1965, the parties were married. The petitioner commenced this action in equity on December 27, 1967, seeking recovery for personal injuries which she suffered in the pre-marital accident.
In considering the question presented we restrict ourselves to considering only the particular circumstances disclosed in the cause now before us. The leading case in this jurisdiction on the question of whether a wife can sue her husband in law for personal injuries received by her while riding as a guest in her husband's automobile, by reason of his claimed gross negligence, is Comstock v. Comstock, 106 Vt. 50, 169 A. 903.
In Comstock, the Court was concerned in construing 15 VSA Sec. 61 (then G.L. 3521) and 15 VSA Sec. 66 (then G.L. 3524) to determine whether a wife had the right to sue her husband in an action at law for a tort committed against her by him during coverture. The opinion in the case concluded with the words:
'Clearly such right is not to be found in express terms in our statute; nor can it be fairly implied from the language used.
If such a radical change is to be made in the common-law rights and liabilities of married persons, as that urged by the plaintiff, it must be made by clear legislative enactment and not by this court in giving an unwarranted construction to the statute before us.'
It is petitioner's contention in the cause now before us that the question presented by the circumstances here make the case clearly distinguishable from Comstock. Among the factual differences in the present cause as contrasted with Comstock, is that the cause of action which the petitioner claims to have against the defendant arose before the marriage of the parties, and that the petitioner was a minor, both at the time of the accident, at the time of marriage and at the time of bringing suit. But we think of whatever importance or non-importance such factual differences might have under other circumstances, it is not important here. The crucial and distinguishing difference in the cause before us and the case that confronted the Court in Comstock is that in Comstock the plaintiff's action against her husband was in a court of law while in the cause before us the action was brought in the Court of Chancery.
The Married Woman's Act in 15 VSA Sec. 66 provides as follows:
We think that there cannot be any doubt that this petitioner, injured through the claimed negligence of one then not her husband, had a right of action acquired before marriage against one who subsequently became her husband. Even after marriage, this right of action was for her sole and separate use, but during the period of the coverture, according to the now somewhat dubious dictate of Comstock she could not exercise her right of action against one who was then her husband, in a court of law.
However, even prior to the enactment of the Married Woman's Act this Court had taken under consideration the rights of a married woman to bring an action in equity, rather than in law, against her husband.
In the early case of Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410, the Court, admitting that at that time the wife could neither sue nor be sued in her own name, pointed out that in Chancery there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Titchenal v. Dexter
...is proper and just to enforce those rights. City of St. Louis v. Golden Gate Corp., 421 S.W.2d 4, 7 (Mo.1967); see Juaire v. Juaire, 128 Vt. 149, 152, 259 A.2d 786, 788 (1969) (equity affords relief whenever legal right exists without adequate remedy; by bringing action in equity, plaintiff......
-
LeBlanc v. Stuart
...a wife may not sue her husband in tort as stated in Comstock v. Comstock, 106 Vt. 50, 169 A. 903 (1933). The court in Juaire v. Juaire, 128 Vt. 149, 259 A.2d 786 (1969) allowed a wife to maintain suit against her husband where the tort occurred before marriage. The court is not called upon ......
-
Chen v. Liao
...Pearce v. Boberg, 89 Nev. 266, 510 P.2d 1358 (1973); Surratt v. Thompson, 212 Va. 191, 183 S.E.2d 200 (1971); Juaire v. Juaire, 128 Vt. 149, 259 A.2d 786 (1969) (suit may be brought in equity); Beaudette v. Frana, 285 Minn. 366, 173 N.W.2d 416 (1969); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 396 P.2......
-
Digirolamo v. Apanavage
...in Tort a Chose in Action," 10 L.Q. 143 (1894) and cases hereinafter referred to in the text and in the next footnote.2 Juaire v. Juaire, 259 A.2d 786 (Vt.1969); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 396 P.2d 285 (1964); cf. Gaston v. Pittman, 224 So.2d 326 (Fla.1969).3 These concepts apparently ......