Merenoff v. Merenoff

Decision Date01 June 1978
Citation388 A.2d 951,76 N.J. 535
PartiesBarbara MERENOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen MERENOFF, Defendant-Respondent. Bienvenida MERCADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Santos MERCADO and Woodall Industries, Inc., a corporation in the State of Ohio, Defendants-Respondents, and Two Guys From Harrison, Inc., a corporation in the State of New Jersey, Defendant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Alfred F. Maurice, Fairview, for appellant Barbara Merenoff (Jesuele & Maurice, Fairview, attorneys).

Ronald R. Kogos, Perth Amboy, for appellant Bienvenida Mercado (Spevack, Kogos, Coe & Portnoff, Perth Amboy, attorneys; Steven B. Portnoff, on the brief).

Robert J. Bossolt, Upper Saddle, for respondent Allen Merenoff (Fred W. Jung, Jr., Chatham, attorney; Robert J. Bossolt, of counsel; George Catlett, Newton, of counsel and on the brief).

Richard P. Cushing, Morristown, for respondent Santos Mercado (Methfessel & Werbel, Rahway, attorneys; Richard P. Cushing, on the brief).

Michael B. Oropollo, New Brunswick, for respondent Woodall Industries, Inc. (Hoagland, Longo, Oropollo & Moran, New Brunswick, attorneys; Donald D. Davidson, New Brunswick, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by


These two cases present the issue of whether the claim of a husband or wife for damages for personal injuries arising from a domestic or household accident attributable to the negligence of the other spouse is barred by the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity. Resolution of this important question requires a decision whether to extend our holding in Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 267 A.2d 481 (1970) which abrogated interspousal immunity in automobile negligence suits.

For purposes of the appeals, no essential facts are disputed. In the Merenoff case, Barbara and Allen Merenoff were trimming the bushes in the walkway in front of their house on September 2, 1974. Allen noticed that his wife seemed to be having trouble with a low bush she was trying to trim and he walked over to her, picked up the hedge trimmer and clipped the bush. In so doing, Allen cut off his wife's left index finger at the first phalanx. Barbara commenced a tort action against her husband on April 17, 1975 for the injuries he inflicted. In his answer Allen alleged that plaintiff's injuries were caused by her own negligence and that plaintiff's claim is barred by the doctrine of interspousal immunity. In response to interrogatories, however, he stated that he clipped the bush without giving notice to his wife and before "checking" with her and that his negligence was the sole cause of the accident.

Both Merenoffs are insured under a homeowner's insurance policy which provides for personal liability coverage of "all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury * * * caused by an occurrence." The insurance company is defending in this action. Each party filed a motion for summary judgment and defendant's motion based on interspousal tort immunity was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Appellate Division and then moved for direct certification pursuant to R. 2:12-2.

In the companion Mercado litigation, according to depositions, on or about October 20, 1972, Santos Mercado bought two one gallon cans of Canolite Contact Cement for the purpose of attaching formica in the kitchen of his apartment. He had never used this cement at any time prior to this accident. A Canolite Contact Cement can has the word "flammable" written on it. Santos was unable to read English; nevertheless, he had had experience as a painter and was accustomed to seeing the word on paint cans and understood its meaning. The next day Santos was using the cement when Bienvenida, his wife, entered the kitchen and stood with her back to a gas stove. Her husband was in front of her spreading glue from the can which was about one and one-half feet from the stove. A flame leapt from the pilot light in the stove, igniting the cement can, a brush and the piece of formica which Santos was holding. Bienvenida, who was in the path of the fire as it shot from the oven toward the glue, was set aflame and burned, severely in some respects, on the left side of her face, left elbow and both legs.

On June 11, 1973 Bienvenida filed a complaint against her husband Santos for her injuries. She later added as defendants Two Guys From Harrison, Inc., Woodall Industries, Inc. and Staley Chemical, respectively, the retailer, manufacturer and distributor of the cement. Santos denied negligence and posed as defenses the negligence of plaintiff and the doctrine of interspousal immunity. A number of cross-claims were filed by defendants. The Mercados have a homeowner's insurance policy in both their names which provides the same personal liability coverage as the Merenoff policy. The insurance company is defending the action.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant Santos against plaintiff and defendants who cross-claimed against him on the ground that the interspousal immunity doctrine barred such actions. Plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Division. The trial court's judgment was affirmed on the ground that interspousal immunity continues to apply to a tort action based on "simple domestic negligence." This Court considered plaintiff's petition for certification together with the petition in the Merenoff case and certified both cases. 71 N.J. 499, 517, 366 A.2d 655, 673 (1976).


To set a perspective to the legal issue we address, it is helpful to recapitulate briefly the history and nature of the doctrine of interspousal immunity. That doctrine originated at common law and had its roots in the historical, legal identity of husband and wife as a single, juridical entity. The rigidity and tenacity of the traditional immunity arising from this legal conception of marriage are exemplified by Phillips v. Barnet, 1 Q.B.D. 436 (1876), first followed in this country by Abbott v. Abbott, 67 Me. 304 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1877), which ruled categorically that "[t]he legal character of an act of violence by husband upon wife and of the consequences that flow from it, is fixed by the (marital) condition of the parties at the time the act is done." Abbott v. Abbott, supra, 67 Me. at 306. The legal incidents and characteristics of marriage at common law, "some substantive, some procedural, some conceptual" were in effect hybridized into an absolute bar " * * * for one spouse ever to be held civilly liable as a tortfeasor, in any situation and without exception, to the other for any act, antenuptial or during marriage, causing personal injury which would have been a tort but for the marriage." McCurdy, "Personal Injury Torts Between Spouses", 4 Vill.L.Rev. 303, 307 (1959). See also 1 Blackstone, Commentaries * 442; McCurdy, "Torts Between Persons in Domestic Relation", 43 Harv.L.Rev. 1030, 1031-1035 (1930); Harper & James, The Law of Torts 643 (1956); Prosser, Law of Torts 859-860 (4th ed. 1971); Hudson v. Gas Consumers' Association, 123 N.J.L. 252, 253, 8 A.2d 337 (E. & A.1934); Bendler v. Bendler, 3 N.J. 161, 173-174, 69 A.2d 302 (1949) (Ackerson, J., dissenting).

For more than a century, starting about 1844, Married Women's Acts so-called were enacted in every American jurisdiction. The intended effect of these statutes was to give married women a separate legal identity. They purported to confer upon women separate ownership and control of their own property, including choses in action. Women became separately responsible for their torts and were given the capacity to sue or be sued without joinder of the husband. Prosser, supra at 861. These statutes, however, rarely addressed with any preciseness the question of whether a cause of action for tort between married persons could be brought. Consequently, the impact of these statutory laws upon the doctrine of interspousal immunity has been uneven throughout common law jurisdictions. McCurdy, supra, 4 Vill.L.Rev. at 336. As a result, it is difficult to categorize and characterize the status of the doctrine of interspousal immunity at the present time.

It is generally believed that a majority of jurisdictions favor marital immunity. Prosser, supra at 862. Upon close analysis, however, one finds that currently only a handful of courts unqualifiedly retain the doctrine in its pristine formulation. See, e. g., Paiewonsky v. Paiewonsky, 446 F.2d 178 (3 Cir. 1971), cert. den. 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed.2d 788 (1972) (applying Virgin Islands law); Monk v. Ramsey, 223 Tenn. 247, 443 S.W.2d 653 (Sup.Ct.1969); Donsbach v. Offield, 488 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1972). Most have abrogated the concept in varying degrees. For example, many permit suit where the marriage has been terminated by death or divorce. See, e. g., Jones v. Pledger, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 363 F.2d 986 (1966) (applying District of Columbia law); Apitz v. Dames, 205 Or. 242, 287 P.2d 585 (Sup.Ct.1955). Several allow recovery for antenuptial torts. See, e. g., Moulton v. Moulton, 309 A.2d 224 (Me.Sup.Jud.Ct.1973); O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 396 P.2d 285 (Sup.Ct.1964). A few have invalidated the immunity in the broad field of automobile negligence. See, e. g., Rupert v. Stienne, 90 Nev. 397, 528 P.2d 1013 (Sup.Ct.1974); Richard v. Richard, 131 Vt. 98, 300 A.2d 637 (Sup.Ct.1973); Surratt v. Thompson, 212 Va. 191, 183 S.E.2d 200 (Sup.Ct.1971). Some have sanctioned recovery between spouses for intentional personal injury. See, e. g., Flores v. Flores, 84 N.M. 601, 506 P.2d 345 (Ct.App.), cert. den. 84 N.M. 592, 506 P.2d 336 (Sup.Ct.1973). Others indicate that if the action can be brought against a third party, the action can be maintained even though it assumes a cause of action between spouses. See, e. g., Fields v. Synthetic Ropes, Inc., 215 A.2d 427 (Del.Supr.1965) (wife's suit against husband's employer for injuries negligently inflicted by husband in course of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Gantes v. Kason Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1996
    ... ... See, e.g., Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951 (1978). The critical contact of the State of Florida to the parties was their domicile; that contact served ... ...
  • Kelly v. Gwinnell
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1984
    ... ... Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951 (1978); Darrow v. Hanover Twp., 58 N.J. 410, 278 A.2d 200 (1971); Willis v. Department of Conservation & ... ...
  • Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1984
    ... ... Court's holding of compensability under workers' compensation law for injuries sustained during lunch period applied prospectively); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 560, 388 A.2d 951 (1978) (abolition of interspousal tort immunity in personal injury actions applied prospectively); ... ...
  • Tornquist v. Perkowski
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • November 15, 1984
    ... ... 22 See Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 267 A.2d 481 (1970) (abrogating interspousal tort immunity in automobile negligence actions); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951 (1978) (abrogating interspousal tort immunity in general) ... 23 Accord White v. Lunder, 66 Wis.2d 563, 225 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • § 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 13 The Divorce Action
    • Invalid date
    ...296 Md. 242, 462 A.2d 506 (1983). Massachusetts: Brown v. Brown, 381 Mass. 231, 409 N.E.2d 717 (1980). New Jersey: Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951 (1978). Texas: Price v. Price, 732 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. 1987). See also § 8.01[3] supra.[383] See: Alabama: Tyndal v. Howle, 25 Fam.......
  • § 8.01 Personal Injury Claims
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 8 Miscellaneous Property Interests
    • Invalid date
    ...P.2d 1013 (1974) (as to car accidents). New Hampshire: Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4, 95 Atl. 657 (1915). New Jersey: Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951 (1978). New Mexico: Maestas v. Overton, 87 N.M. 213, 531 P.2d 947 (1975). New York: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ......
  • Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. Wiscomb: Excluding the Family Exclusion Clause
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 6-03, March 1983
    • Invalid date
    ...376 Mich. 532, 549, 138 N.W.2d 343, 347 (1965); Dunlap v. Dunlap, 84 N.H. 352, 363-64, 150 A. 905, 911 (1930); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 556, 388 A.2d 951, 962 (1978); Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 489, 267 A.2d 481, 485 (1970) (limited solely to motor vehicle accidents in Steward v......
  • Article Title: the Doctrine of Interspousal Immunity in Utah: Does it Still Exist?
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 12-7, September 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...693 P.2d 661(Utah 1984). 65Id. at 674-75. 66Utah Code Annotated § 41-9-1, 41-9-2 Repealed (1953, as amended). 67Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 554, 388 A.2d 951 (1978). 68Id. at 960. 69Tobias, supra note 6 at 456. 70Id. (citing Oken v. Oken, 44 R.I. 291, 293, 117 A. 357, 358 (1922), ove......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT