Can spouses sue each other for negligence in Utah? Ellis v. Estate of Ellis Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Ellis v. Estate of Ellis definitively resolved a long-standing question about interspousal immunity in Utah tort law. The court held that spouses can sue each other for both intentional and negligent torts, completely abrogating the common-law doctrine that historically prevented such lawsuits.

Background and Facts

Aimee Ellis sued her deceased husband’s estate for negligence after he caused a fatal car accident during their honeymoon. Steven Ellis lost control of the vehicle, crossed into oncoming traffic, and died in the collision. Aimee survived with serious injuries including head trauma and broken bones. She filed suit over four years after the accident. The estate moved to dismiss on two grounds: interspousal immunity and statute of limitations.

Key Legal Issues

First, whether the common-law doctrine of interspousal immunity barred negligence claims between spouses. Second, whether lay affidavits could establish mental incompetency sufficient to toll the four-year statute of limitations under Utah Code section 78-12-36.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court traced Utah’s “tortuous path” regarding interspousal immunity, noting contradictory precedents before Stoker v. Stoker (1980). In Stoker, the court held that Utah’s Married Women’s Act abrogated interspousal immunity for intentional torts. Here, the court extended that holding to negligence claims, reasoning that the Act’s language allowing wives to “prosecute and defend all actions for the preservation and protection of her rights” encompasses freedom from both intentional and negligent torts. The court rejected traditional justifications for immunity—marital discord and collusion—as meritless in modern society.

Regarding statute of limitations tolling, the court affirmed that lay affidavits from family members describing Ellis’s post-accident mental state could create genuine issues of material fact about her competency without requiring expert medical testimony.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah completely rejects interspousal immunity, allowing tort claims between spouses in all circumstances. For statute of limitations issues involving mental incompetency, practitioners can rely on lay witness testimony describing a plaintiff’s inability to manage affairs or understand legal rights, though medical evidence remains helpful.