Bruton v. Villoria

California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 1956 No. Civ. 21095Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a husband's negligence cannot be imputed to his wife to bar her recovery for personal injuries when the law of the parties' domicile provides that the husband has no interest in the wife's recovery. Because the husband would not benefit from the damages, the rationale for the imputed negligence rule is absent.

Issues

Whether a husband's negligence in a vehicle collision should be imputed to his wife to bar her recovery for personal injuries when the law of their domicile grants the husband no interest in the recovery.
Whether the law of the parties' domicile governs the ownership of a cause of action for personal injuries for the purpose of applying the rule of imputed negligence.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The sole reason for the rule which imputed the negligence of the husband to the wife in cases such as the one at bar is that the husband, having a community interest in the recovery, should not be permitted to benefit by his own wrong.”

SHINN, P. J.

In this action of Mary Bruton against Charles Joseph Villoría et al., for the recovery of damages sustained as a result of injuries received in a collision of automobiles, plaintiff appeals from a judgment upon verdict in favor of the defendants.

The car in which plaintiff was riding belonged to her husband who was driving, with plaintiff and two children of the parties riding with him.

The answer, in addition to denials, pleaded the defense of negligence on the part of Mr. Bruton in the operation of the car which was alleged to have been the direct and proximate cause of a collision between the two vehicles, At the request of the defendants Villoría the jury was instructed that if Mr. Bruton was negligent Ms negligence was imputed to the plaintiff. This statement of the law is

[644]

challenged by appellant; the instruction is not criticized in any other respect.

Mr. and Mrs. Bruton were domiciled in the Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada. It was stipulated that under the law of their domicile no system of community property prevailed. The appeal is argued upon the assumption that the husband would have no ownership or interest in any damages recovered by the wife under the law of their domicile. This appears to be a correct assumption. (The Married Women’s Property Act, Rev. Stats., Ontario (1950), ch. 223, §3(1).)

The parties are in agreement that since the cause of action arose in California and was tried here, the California law with respect to contributory negligence applies. (Rest., Conflict of Laws, § 385.) It is not questioned that as between husband and wife domiciled in California a recovery by the wife for personal injuries would be community property, and if the wife is injured through the negligence of the husband, his negligence will be imputed to her.

The question is, what is the law of California that has application to the admitted facts?

The sole reason for the rule which imputed the negligence of the husband to the wife in cases such as the one at bar is that the husband, having a community interest in the recovery, should not be permitted to benefit by his own wrong. This principle has been stated in unbroken continuity from

Bruton v. Villoria

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief