Kircher v. Kircher
| Decision Date | 05 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 15.,15. |
| Citation | 286 N.W. 120,288 Mich. 669 |
| Parties | KIRCHER v. KIRCHER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action for damages for personal injuries resulting from operation of automobile by Hilda Kircher against John Kircher. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; DeWitt H. Merriam, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Shapero & Shapero and Carlyle Michelman, all of Detroit, for appellant.
Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, of Detroit, for appellee.
Plaintiff is the wife of defendant and appeals from a judgment holding that she cannot recover damages against her husband in the courts of this state for injuries she sustained in the state of Colorado, by reason of his negligent operation of an automobile.The parties, residents of Michigan, in July, 1936, made a pleasure trip to the state of Colorado by automobile and attached house trailer. In Colorado, while aiding her husband in an endeavor to pull the house trailer from a spot where it was stuck, she claims that defendant so negligently operated the automobile as to cause severe injuries to her person.
The circuit judge held that under the law of this state, expressive of public policy, a wife may not recover damages against the husband for injuries occasioned by his negligence, whether the act was committed here or elsewhere.
Plaintiff contends that the negligence having occurred in the state of Colorado, where the law permits a recovery, there is right to have recovery here.
It is conceded that no such action by a wife against her husband can accrue in this state. Bandfield v. Bandfield, 117 Mich. 80, 75 N.W. 287,40 L.R.A. 757, 72 Am.St.Rep. 550;Harvey v. Harvey, 239 Mich. 142, 214 N.W. 305;Riser v. Riser, 240 Mich. 402, 215 N.W. 290.
Does the fact that the place of accident was in another state where such right of action is recognized (Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19, 46 P.2d 740, 743) accord the right to bring action here?
Plaintiff invokes the law of the place of injury, which is contrary to the law of the forum she has selected to have the trial.
The law of Colorado is in conflict with the established public policy in this jurisdiction. In Rains v. Rains, supra, the supreme court of Colorado stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.
...residing here, capacity to sue in our courts upon a cause of action arising there.' See also Kyle v. Kyle, supra; Kircher v. Kircher, 288 Mich. 669, 286 N.W. 120 (Sup.Ct.1939); Poling v. Poling, 116 W.Va. 187, 179 S.E. 604 (Sup.Ct.1935). It may be noted also that after the amendment of the ......
-
Lieberthal v. Glens Falls Indem. Co. of Glens Falls, N. Y.
...of Commerce v. Stroud and Curtis v. Mueller, supra. And in point of law the instant case cannot be distinguished from Kircher v. Kircher, 288 Mich. 669, 286 N.W. 120, 121, where, notwithstanding the suit could have been maintained in a Colorado court, we said: ‘Plaintiff invokes the doctrin......
-
Mosier v. Carney
...is below [lower than] the standard." Finally, this Court last considered the issue of interspousal tort immunity in Kircher v. Kircher (1939), 288 Mich. 669, 286 N.W. 120. There plaintiff sought to recover against her husband for injuries caused by his alleged negligence in the state of Col......
-
Hare v. Starr Commonwealth Corp.
...sister-state judgment under the rules of comity when doing so would contravene this state's policies or interests. Kircher v. Kircher, 288 Mich. 669, 671, 286 N.W. 120 (1939), questioned in part on other grounds Hosko v. Hosko, 385 Mich. 39, 187 N.W.2d 236 (1971). As noted previously, there......