Ellis v. Estate of Ellis: the Unequivocal Death of Interspousal Immunity in Utah
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Pages | 9 |
| Publication year | 2008 |
| Citation | Vol. 21 No. 2 Pg. 9 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
Vol. 21, No. 2, 9. Ellis v. Estate of Ellis: The Unequivocal Death of Interspousal Immunity in Utah
Utah Bar Journal
Vol. 21, No. 2
March/April 2008
Vol. 21, No. 2
March/April 2008
Ellis v. Estate of Ellis: The Unequivocal Death of
Interspousal Immunity in Utah
Ellis v. Estate of Ellis: The Unequivocal Death
of Interspousal Immunity in Utah
by Stephen D. Kelson
On January 2, 2001, newlyweds Steven and Aimee Ellis were
traveling by car on their honeymoon. Near Shelley, Idaho, Mr
Ellis lost control of the vehicle and crossed the center
median into oncoming traffic, resulting in a collision with a
two-ton Mitsubishi truck. Mr. Ellis died as a result of the
accident. Mrs. Ellis was hospitalized with serious injuries
including a severe head injury, numerous broken bones
internal injuries, and emotional trauma. Four years later
Mrs. Ellis filed a personal injury action against her
husband's estate for negligence, in the Third District
Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.1 The Estate brought a
motion to dismiss Mrs. Ellis's claim, in part, asserting
that it was barred by the doctrine of interspousal immunity.2
The district court granted the Estate's motion in part,
dismissing Mrs. Ellis's claim of negligence and
concluding with reluctance that interspousal immunity is
abrogated in Utah only with respect to intentional torts.
Mrs. Ellis appealed the decision.
While historically the court has allowed legal actions
between spouses with respect to contract and property law3
and for intentional acts,4 many practitioners have argued
that no Utah case had specifically permitted an action based
on ordinary negligence. On September 21, 2007, the Utah
Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Ellis v.
Estate of Ellis,5 ending any dispute as to whether the
doctrine of interspousal immunity still exists in Utah. In a
unanimous decision, drafted by Justice J. Durrant, the court
held that interspousal immunity has been abrogated in Utah
with respect to all claims.
This article briefly examines the Utah Supreme Court's
decision in Ellis v. Estate of Ellis. First it
reviews the history of the doctrine of interspousal immunity.
Second, it examines the "tortuous path" of the
doctrine under Utah law and the arguable uncertainty and
misunderstanding regarding its application. Finally, it
examines the supreme court's grounds for its
reaffirmation of the abrogation of interspousal immunity,
effectively slamming the coffin lid on the doctrine of
interspousal immunity in Utah.
The History of Interspousal Immunity
The doctrine of interspousal immunity is a creation of
English common law, arguably based upon early Roman law and
subsequent Biblical interpretation of marriage, where a
husband and wife became "one flesh," united in
purpose and spirit, making it illogical to place the spouse
of an injured party in an adversarial position.6 As stated in
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that
is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is
suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated
and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing,
protection, and cover, she performs every thing;. .
. and her condition during her marriage is called her
coverture. Upon this principle, of an union of
person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal
rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire
by the marriage.7
This "coverture" or "spousal unity"
theory placed a married couple's legal identity in the
husband, and prohibited one spouse from seeking a tort
against the other for harm or injury, as the husband would
legally have been both the plaintiff and the defendant in
such litigation.8 This concept of common law coverture was
adopted in the American colonies and continued well into the
nineteenth century.
In the United States, during the latter half of the
nineteenth century, states began to pass Married Women's
Property Acts (or "Married Women's Acts") which
terminated the common law unity of husband and wife, and
established by statute that married women could "sue and
be sued in the same manner as if she were unmarried."9
These Acts significantly increased the legal rights of women
allowing them to sue their husbands, defend their property
interests, and make claims for fraud, trespass, conversion,
and negligent injury to property.10 However, state courts
faced with legislative Married Women's Acts often turned
to public policy-based argument in order to justify the
continued affirmation of the interspousal immunity doctrine.
These public policy considerations generally included a
mixture of the following arguments: 1) immunity preserves
marital harmony, and interspousal tort suits will disrupt
marital tranquility; 2) husbands and wives will engage in
fraud and collusion in order to recover from liability
insurance policies; 3) doing away with interspousal immunity
will create excessive and frivolous claims; and/or 4) injured
parties should pursue alternative remedies such as divorce or
criminal charges.11 Although originally supported by many...
To continue reading
Request your trial