Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Prior law holds that the law of the place of wrong controls as to whether one spouse is immune from suit in tort by the other. This was the prevailing view in the majority of jurisdictions in this country. Annotation 22 A.L.R.2d 1248, 1251-1253, entitled, 'Conflict of laws as to right of action between husband and wife or parent and child.' It is also the rule adopted in Restatement, Conflict of Laws, p. 457, sec. 378, and p. 470, sec. 384(2). However, criticism of the rule by legal writers, some of them recognized authorities in the field of conflict of laws, and recent decisions by the courts of California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have caused us to re-examine the question afresh.

The law of the domicile, and not the place of wrong, should be applied in determining whether a wife had capacity to sue her husband in tort. Pages 248-250 and 345-346 of text. Also, in 1942, Max Rheinstein in an article in 41 Michigan Law Review 83, 97, advocated that the law of domicile should be applied in conflict of laws situations to determine whether there is an immunity for tort grounded on family relationship. Ernst Rabel, ...

Register or login to access full content