Heino v. Harper

We are asked in this case to reconsider the rule of law in Oregon that a person is immune from liability for negligent torts committed against his or her spouse. This court first announced the rule for this state as a matter of common law in Smith v. Smith, 205 Or 286, 287 P2d 572 (1955); see also Apitz v. Dames, 205 Or 242, 287 P2d 585 (1955), and later followed the rule in Chaffin v. Chaffin, 239 Or 374, 397 P2d 771 (1964); see also Moser v. Hampton, 67 Or App 716, 679 P2d 1379, aff’d by an equally divided court 298 Or 171, 690 P2d 505 (1984). Upon further consideration, however, we now…