SHOULD THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY BE ABOLISHED FROM KENTUCKY COMMON LAW?
In deciding whether to modify the common law, this Court must weigh the benefits versus the burdens of the proposed change. We shall examine the rationale for removing the BPM action from the common law and then we shall discuss the reasons why it should be retained. The primary argument in favor of abolition of the BPM action is that society’s view of marriage and women have changed dramatically since this cause of action was adopted. While technically either a man or a woman could bring the cause of action in question, this Court is unaware of a man ever asserting such claim before the courts of the Commonwealth. The cases which interpret this cause of action make clear the party who is sought to be protected: A promise to marry is not infrequently one of the base and wicked tricks of the wily Seducer to accomplish his purposes by overcoming that resistance which female virtue makes to his unholy designs. Scharringhaus v. Hazen, 269 Ky. 425, 107 S.W.2d 329, 336 (1937) (citing Goodall
