Mertz v. Mertz - 271 N.Y. 466, 3 N.E.2d 597 (1936)

Rule:

The law of New York attaches to the marriage status a reciprocal disability which precludes a suit by one spouse against the other for personal injuries. It recognizes the wrong but denies remedy for such wrong by attaching to the person of the spouse a disability to sue. No other state can, outside of its own territorial limits, remove that disability or provide by its law a remedy available in New York courts which our law denies to other suitors.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Emmy Mertz, filed suit in New York seeking to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in Connecticut through her husband's negligent operation of an automobile. The parties were residents of the State of New York. The lower court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that under the law of the State of Connecticut a husband was liable for personal injuries caused to the wife.

Issue:

May a wife residing in New York resort to the courts of New York to enforce liability for a wrong committed outside of the State, notwithstanding the fact that under the laws of New York, a husband was immune from such liability?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling. Although the cause of action arose in Connecticut, plaintiff was restricted to the remedies provided by New York law. Under New York law, a husband was not liable to his wife for personal injuries caused by his negligence. The court noted that the law of the forum determined the jurisdiction of the courts, the capacity of parties to sue or to be sued, the remedies which were available to suitors and the procedure of the courts. Where a party sought in the State of New York enforcement of a cause of action created by foreign law, he can avail himself only of the remedies provided by New York law, and was subject to the general limitations which were part of the State’s law.