Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Torts

Freehe v. Freehe

Supreme Court of Washington · 1972 · Torts
500 P.2d 771 (1972)
Updated
TortsInterspousal tort immunityCommunity propertyinterspousal immunitymarital tortspersonal injurycommon lawRCW 26.16.150

Facts

Plaintiff Clifford Freehe sought damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligent maintenance of a tractor and failure to warn him of its unsafe condition. The defendant was plaintiff's wife. The accident occurred on the wife's separate-property farm, whose assets and income, including the tractor, were her separate property, and the farming business was carried on separately from any community business. Plaintiff had no interest in the farming operation and was not employed by defendant.

Issue

Whether Washington should retain the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity so as to bar one spouse from suing the other for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence during marriage. Also, if such a suit is allowed, how damages should be allocated in light of community property principles.

Rule

In Washington, the common-law rule of interspousal disability in personal injury cases is abandoned. RCW 26.16.150 means what it says: every married person has the same right and liberty to sue and be sued as if unmarried, so a spouse with an individual interest in compensation for personal injuries may sue the tortfeasor spouse. In such actions, special damages including established future specials are recoverable by the community; general damages for loss of future earnings that would have been community property are recoverable one-half by the injured spouse as separate property; and general damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and the like are fully recoverable as the separate property of the injured spouse.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Spokane, Maya Torres alleges that her husband, Evan Torres, negligently left a cellar stairway unrepaired in their duplex, causing her to fall and suffer a fractured ankle. They remain married and live together, and Evan moves to dismiss solely because one spouse may not sue the other for negligence during marriage.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority abolished the common-law rule of interspousal tort immunity in personal injury cases. A married person has the same right to sue and be sued as if unmarried, so the existence of an ongoing marriage does not itself bar a negligence action for personal injuries.