31 Haumschild vs. Continental Causalty Co.

Facts:

- Mrs. Haumschild and her husband Mr. Haumschild are residents of Wisconsin.
- They both travelled to California.
- While in California, Mrs. Haumschild was injured in an automobile accident as a result of Mr.
Haumschild’s negligence.
- It must be noted that California law prohibited a husband or a wife from bringing suit gainst a
spouse for negligence while Wisconsin law allows suits against husband and wife.
- Since they were both citizens of Wisconsin, Mrs. Haumschild sued her husband in Wisconsin.

Issue:

- Whether or not the spouses’ domiciliary law should apply in the case which would allow the suit
against husband and wife. YES

Ruling:

The Wisconsin Court stated that:

- Where the place of the wrong prohibits husbands and wives from suing each other for negligence,
the court of the spouses’ domicile may apply its own law that would allow such suits.
- This case presents the issue of capacity to sue due to marital status.
o This relates to substantive family law and not to substantive tort law.
- While the majority of the states recognize the place of the wrong as governing capacity, the Court
felt that the state of the domicile has a greater interest in such cases than the state where the
wrong took place.
- While California’s conflict of laws rule would refer to our law to determine wife’s capacity, we do
not feel it proper to resort to the awkward principles of renvoi to accomplish what we feel to be
the desired result.
- The law of the place of the wrong will govern as to substantive tort law, but the law of the
domicile will govern as to capacity to sue.
- Mrs. Haumschild should be allowed to recover.

NOTE: The Court decided that the law of the place of accident, California, governed the issue of negligence
while Wisconsin law governed the issue of interspousal immunity. The characterization process was taken
one step further by not limiting the classification to the case itself but likewise, to the issues arising from
the case.