Romeo v. Romeo,
418 A.2d 258 (1980)


Procedure: Petitioner wife appealed the order from the Superior Court Appellate Division (New Jersey) reversing the compensation judge's determination that petitioner was entitled to dependency benefits as a result of her husband's death, even though petitioner's husband was also her employee.

Facts: Irene Romeo (P) seeks dependency benefits under the Work¬ers' Compensation Act because of the death of her husband, Joseph, in the course of his employment by her. Joseph had been shot to death in a robbery while returning from a bank with a large amount of cash forP's tavern, where Joseph worked. The compensation judge awarded benefits. The appellate court reversed. P appeals.

Issue: Is a contract between spouses even for employment utterly void and unenforceable at law?

Rule:Intent expressed in statute is judicial question with respect to which inaction of subsequent legislatures is not dispositive.

Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed.
After granting certification, the Supreme Court, Pashman, J., held that: (1) Married Women's Act provision specifying that nothing in such Act enables husband or wife to contract with or to sue each other except as heretofore did not establish substantive rule of law on capacity of spouses to contract with one another; and (2) husband and wife had capacity to enter into employment contract, and thus wife, who owned bar and who employed husband, was entitled to dependency benefits following death of husband in course of his employment.

Analysis: A contractual employment relationship is a prerequisite for recovery under the Workers' Compensation Act. The Married Women's Property Act left the common law rule against interspousal contracts in effect. The policy reason for the common law rule, based on the theory of spousal unity of person and interest, is no longer valid. A married couple is "an association of two individuals" rather than "an independent entity." The policy reason for the rule based on the theory of the preservation of marital harmony is not justified in workers' compensation cases.