|
8. Romeo v. Romeo (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980)
1. Fact
Irene Romeo (Plaintiff) and decedent Joseph Romeo were a married couple. P ran her pub and the decedent, her husband, worked for her as an employee and received a salary. On Feb. 22, 1974, he was shot and killed on the way to the bank for work as usual. After his death, in 1976, P filed a petition requesting benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Act. The court made a decision that P could recover benefit following public policy denying interspousal tort immunity. Respondent appealed and the Appellant Court reversed in Bendler v. Bendler.
2. Issue
Whether a spouse has a right to recover benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Act if the employee and the employer are husband and wife.
3. Rules
1) General Scheme of Compensation Act
A compensation is incorporated into a common-law contract of hire. Thus, a contract of hire is prerequisite.
2) An Act to Amend the Law Relating to the Property of Married Women," Rev.Stat. 1874,[5] p. 468 (approved March 27, 1874) ("Married Women's Act")
A married women can be entitled to her own earnings and sue in her own name.
4. Application
Respondents argued that, in common-law, contracts between wife and husband are voidable because husband and wife is a unity and the contracts lack contractual capacity in Bendler v. Bendler. The Court disputed that such contracts influence bargain and sales and induce separation rather than a unity. However, both agreed that Bendler case was decided 30 years ago and needs to be reconsidered to adopt in terms of the statutory basis and the common law basis.
1) In the statutory basis, from In Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482 (1970), the statute did not incorporate immunity but rather the common law. Also, in Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535 (1978), it was reaffirmed that the statue does not establish a substantive rule of law on the capacity of spouses to contract with one another. Therefore, common law should be focused.
2) In the common law basis, from various cases, the martial couple is “an association of two individuals” rather than “an independent entity” because a marriage is assumed a partnership. And, the judge claimed that denying interspousal immunity would not hurt martial harmony, citing Merenoff case and Immer v. Risko. Also, though permitting tort immunity is not necessary to carry contract claims, it will bring personal happiness and thus contractual agreement between a martial couple is treated as more flexible than ones between those who are not married to each other.
In addition, workers’ compensation coverage cannot be negotiable and the scheme is not related to “bargain and sale”. An employer is required to insure its employees and recovery would be against an insurance company. It is the fundamental principle underlying workers’ compensation.
Respondents disputed that due to recognizing interspousal employment contract, the risk of fraudulent can increase. But it is certain that an insurance company will find out such fraudulent claims.
5. Conclusion
The Court reversed and ordered the compensation award reinstated.
6. Feedback
· Interspousal Immunity
Prohibition against spouses suing each other. The immunity was established to prevent spouses from successfully prevailing in civil cases for recovery of damages in the case of a personal injury. Interspousal immunity was a part of common law. Today, the majority of states have abolished interspousal immunity.
The concept and doctrine of interspousal immunity arose in the 1960s, when the prevailing idea that a woman’s legal identity merged with her husband’s upon marriage. Based upon this premise, it did not make sense for a person to sue him or herself in essence.
It was also believed that tort laws between a husband and wife would destroy family harmony. As a result, the courts ruled such cases would affect the integrity of the family and its assets. This stance further supported the institution of interspousal immunity.
The woman’s suffrage movement and expansion of women’s rights led to the abolishment of interspousal immunity. Much of the reasoning behind interspousal immunity has all but been eliminated because every state now recognizes women with their own separate legal identity, regardless of marital status.
Courts began to recognize the lack of reasoning behind interspousal immunity and permitted spouses to sue each other if the tort was ruled intentional. The courts continued to expand this holding to allow for tort actions against spouses who caused injuries out of intentional or negligent conduct.
Despite the court’s recognition and permitting of spousal actions, it is important to note that some insurance companies have exclusions under their automotive or homeowner’s policies. As a result, should a spouse sustain injuries in an automobile accident at the hands of their spouse’s negligence, they may not be able to file a suit if their insurance policy does not allow one spouse to sue another.
Lastly, should a spouse file a tort action against the other, oftentimes the case will be spouse v. spouse, not spouse v. spouse’s insurance company. Insurance companies typically indemnify their clients. Should a legal arise against their client, insurance companies will pay for the legal defense and up to a certain amount of coverage based upon the policy. As a result, the injured individual would name their actual spouse as the defendant, not their insurance company.
|