Wooley v. Parker
| Decision Date | 11 October 1968 |
| Citation | 222 Tenn. 104,432 S.W.2d 882,26 McCanless 104 |
| Parties | , 222 Tenn. 104 Alice Joy WOOLEY v. James D. PARKER, Administrator, etc. Melissa Joy WOOLEY by next friend v. James D. PARKER, Administrator, etc. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Eaves & McColpin, Chattanooga, for plaintiffs in error.
James D. Robinson, Goins, Gammon, Baker & Robinson, Chattanooga, for defendant in error; Denny C. Mobbs, Chattanooga, of counsel.
In the first of the above captioned actions the plaintiff, Alice Joy Wooley, the surviving widow of Frank M. Wooley, deceased, brought suit against his estate for personal injuries received by her on June 1, 1964, as a result of an automobile accident in which her husband, Frank M. Wooley, was driving his car in an alleged negligent, reckless and careless manner in that he drove his automobile over the center line of a main highway and into the path of an oncoming truck, thus killing himself and inflicting the injuries for which his widow sues.
The second of the above captioned actions is a suit by Melissa Joy Wooley through her next friend, which is brought for damages for personal injuries received by her in this same accident in which her mother sues for injuries and which it is alleged was the result of the negligence of her father in driving his automobile as alleged in her mother's action wherein he was killed and in which it is alleged he injured this plaintiff.
The defendant, James D. Parker, Administrator of the estate of Frank M. Wooley, deceased, demurred to each declaration, setting forth the fact that the declaration failed to state a cause of action. This demurrer was sustained and the action dismissed and an appeal has been seasonably perfected to this Court wherein arguments have been heard and exceptionally able briefs filed on both sides. After fully considering all authorities, reading the briefs, we have reached a satisfactory, as far as we are concerned, determination thereof.
The suit of Melissa Joy Wooley, the child, is fully determined and the reasons therefor are fully given by an opinion this day released of Railway Express, Inc., et al. v. Leona Campbell b/n/f, et al, from the Circuit Court of Greene County, wherein we have adopted the opinion of the Court of Appeals in that case as our opinion. Thus it is, it would be a foolish duplication for us again to re-state our reasons for affirming the action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer in this suit, and as a result thereof we fully adopt the reasons again in the present suit which were given for such a dismissal in the Railway Express case, supra.
In addition to the distinction made in the Railway Express case, supra, to Logan v. Reaves, 209 Tenn. 631, 635, 354 S.W.2d 789, we would add that this child succeeds to such rights only against her father as she had at the time of the accident, and for her to have any right against him after he died there must be some right in existence which survives his death. No such right we now think exists. Certain statements made in Logan v. Reaves, supra, are primarily ths basis for the appeal on behalf of the daughter of the deceased Wooley.
The other lawsuit, that of Alice Joy Wooley against the estate of her deceased husband, is a tort action brought by a wife against the husband's estate for personal injuries, etc., by reason of an automobile accident which it is alleged resulted from the negligence of her deceased husband. This suit is in a way new in Tennessee but in principle and from reason it is controlled by previous decisions of this Court, which hold that no cause of action arises for torts from one spouse against the other which occurred while the parties were married. In 1915, this Court had before it Lillienkamp v. Rippetoe, 133 Tenn. 57, 179 S.W. 628, L.R.A.1916B, 881, the basic question. In that case this Court said:
In this case the Court for the first time had before it the woman's emancipation act (Chapter 26, Public Acts of 1913, codified as § 36--601, T.C.A.) and in considering that question we said:
'We must assume that the Legislature had in mind in the passage of the act the fundamental doctrine of the unity of husband and wife under the common law, and the correlative duties of husband and wife to each other, and to the well-being of the social order growing out of the marriage relation, and that, if it had been the purpose of the Legislature to alter these further than as indicated in the act, that purpose would have been clearly expressed. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luna v. Clayton
...... See Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882 (1968); Hance v. Haun, supra; Gordon v. Pollard, 207 Tenn. 45, 336 S.W.2d 25 (1960); Tobin v. Gelrich, ......
-
Bozman v. Bozman
...v. Herron, 20 Ohio St.2d 62, 253 N.E.2d 772 (1969); DiGirolamo et al. v. Apanayage, 454 Pa. 557, 312 A.2d 382 (1973); Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882 (1968); Adams, Adm'x. v. Grogg, 153 W.Va. 55, 166 S.E.2d 755 9. Georgia has codified the interspousal immunity doctrine. Ga C......
-
McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC
...Assembly unquestionably has the constitutional and legislative authority to change the common law of this state"); Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882, 884 (1968) (explaining that "the Legislature of the State for obvious reasons sets the public policy of the State by their Acts......
-
Boblitz v. Boblitz, 126
...McKinney v. McKinney, 59 Wyo. 204, 135 P.2d 940 (Wyo.1943); Austin v. Austin, 136 Miss. 61, 100 So. 591 (Miss.1924); Wooley v. Parker, 222 Tenn. 104, 432 S.W.2d 882 In McKinney v. McKinney, 59 Wyo. 204, 135 P.2d 940 (1943), the Supreme Court of Wyoming (a three Judge court) after holding th......