MORRISSETT VS. MORRISSETT (DIVORCE)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

McNamee, J. The sole question was whether Nevada should continue to follow the rule of interspousal immunity for torts established in Kennedy v. Kennedy, 76 Nev. 302, 352 P.2d 833 (1960). The court reaffirmed Kennedy: at common law, and in Nevada absent a permissive statute, there is no cause of action in favor of one spouse against the other sounding in tort. Neither NRS 12.020 (party status of married women) nor NRS 41.170 (option to sue jointly or separately) is a permissive statute abrogating interspousal immunity for personal torts. The court declined to follow California's Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683, 376 P.2d 65 (1962), and Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 376 P.2d 70 (1962), which had overruled the authority Kennedy relied on, holding that any change in the interspousal-immunity rule must come from the Legislature. Affirmed.

In plain language

A wife sued her husband for money damages, claiming she was injured while riding in a car he was driving in a grossly negligent way, which collided with another vehicle. The husband asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that in Nevada one spouse cannot sue the other for a personal injury. The trial court dismissed the case. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It reaffirmed the common-law rule of interspousal immunity it had adopted in an earlier case (Kennedy v. Kennedy): absent a statute that specifically permits it, a wife has no legal claim against her husband for a personal tort. The court held that two Nevada statutes the wife pointed to did not authorize such a suit. Even though California had recently changed its rule to allow spouses to sue each other, the Nevada court declined to follow suit, saying any change to the interspousal-immunity rule in Nevada must be made by the Legislature, not the courts.