Romeo v. Romeo – Workers' Compensation
Romeo v. Romeo, 84 N.J. 289, 418 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1980).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved an action for Workers’ Compensation dependency benefits.
FACTS: Irene (W) and Joseph (H) Romeo married in 1963 and lived together until Joseph’s death. In 1973, Irene purchased a tavern and restaurant as sole proprietor.
Joseph had worked at the tavern part time until 1973 when began working for his wife for $150 per week salary. His responsibilities included cashing the paychecks of local factory workers. On one such trip he was found dead with gunshot wounds to the back of his head in the passenger seat of his car. The police found only a few dollars and the concluded that Joseph had been ambushed as he returned to his car from the bank, driven to an isolated area, and then robbed and shot.
Irene filed a petition for Workers’ Compensation dependency benefits. The judge found that Joseph worked for Irene and his death was a result of an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment and awarded her $75 per week in dependency benefits.
On appeal, the court examined whether there had been any change in the law regarding interspousal tort law immunity. The court reasoned that if interspousal tort immunity had been abolished then the common law should not be allowed to defeat the public policy behind the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court reversed, holding that the trial court judge had erred in framing the issue in terms of interspousal immunity whereas the issue was one of contractual capacity. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted cert.
ISSUE: Is a contract between spouses even for employment void and unenforceable at law?
RULE OF LAW: No. A contract between spouses even for employment is not void and unenforceable if enforcement will not affect marital harmony.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The Court held that the relevant statute does not establish a substantive rule on the capacity of spouses to contract with one another. As such we must look to the common law to determine if a contract for employment between spouses is void and unenforceable. Each time a rule of law is applied it must be carefully scrutinized to make sure that the conditions and needs of the times have not so changed as to make further application of it unjust. The underpinning of this doctrine is the theory of spousal unity of person and the public policy interest in the preservation of marital harmony. Presently the realities belie the notion that spouses are specialized members of a single indivisible enterprise. The marital couple is an association of two individuals rather than an independent entity.
As for marital harmony, the weaknesses of relying on marital harmony to justify tort immunity do not necessarily carry over to contract claims. Although not an independent entity, a marriage is still a partnership that is more than the sum of its members. The State therefore has an interest in treating contractual agreements within a marriage more flexibly than agreements between persons who are not married. Despite the interests against enforcement of such contracts, it could become an instrument of injustice if we were to accept uncritically the assumption that any enforcement would promote discord. Under these facts, Irene seeks recognition of an employment relationship.
It must be recognized that the terms of workers’ compensation coverage cannot be negotiated by the parties. An employer is required to insure its employees and any suit and recovery is against an insurance company rather than the spouse. The danger of marital disruption becomes almost academic when liability insurance is available. These factors distinguish the present case from one in which remedies are sought for breach of an interspousal contract. The strong state public policy to provide social insurance for work related injuries should not be thwarted by continued application of the common law rule against interspousal contracts.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.