Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Co., 136.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 136.,136. |
| Citation | 280 Mich. 286,273 N.W. 571 |
| Parties | CUGELL v. SANI-WASH LAUNDRY CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Simeon Cugell, special administrator of the estate of Joseph Musial, deceased, against the Sani-Wash Laundry Company, formerly the Mechanics Laundry Company, and another. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Harry J. Lippman, of Detroit (Paul V. Hutchins, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward A. Smith, of Detroit, for appellees.
The declaration charges negligent injuries to Joseph Musial on November 24, 1915, resulting in his death on the same day; and that he left surviving him a widow, Barbara, a son, two years old, since deceased, and a daughter Adella, about five months old, who became of age June 22, 1936.
Plaintiff was appointed administrator of the estate of Joseph Musial April 21, 1936, and commenced this action July 21, 1936, particularly for the benefit of Adella, counting on both the Survival Act (Comp.Laws 1929, § 14040 et seq.) and the Death Act (Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 14061, 14062).
On motion, the action was dismissed on the ground that the statute of limitations had run against it.
The statutes of limitations involved are:
‘Actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property shall be brought within three (3) years from the time said actions accrue, and not afterwards.’ Comp.Laws 1929, § 13976.
‘If any person entitled to bring any of the actions mentioned in this chapter shall, at the time when the cause of action accrues, be within the age of twenty-one (21) years, insane, or imprisoned in the state prison, such person may bring the action within the times in this chapter respectively limited, after the disability shall by removed.’ Comp.Laws 1929, § 13978.
Plaintiff's contention is that, because Adella Musial would have had an interest in the recovery as infant daughter, the latter statute applies to the instant case.
It is the rule that statutes of limitations apply to infants as well as to adults, unless exceptions are made in their favor.
The Survival Statute, Comp.Laws 1929, § 14040, applies when death from the injuries is not instantaneous. The cause of action accrues to the deceased during his lifetime. In case of his death before judgment, his executor or administrator may prosecute the suit. Comp.Laws 1929, § 14042. Such cause of action, therefore, would vest in the representatives of the deceased on his death, Adella would not be a ‘person entitled to bring’ the action, and section 13978 is not applicable.
The Death Act, Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 14061, 14062, created a new right of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berger v. Weber
...A.L.R.3d 528; Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal.3d 441, 138 Cal.Rptr. 302, 563 P.2d 858 (1977).4 In Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Co., 280 Mich. 286, 289, 273 N.W. 571 (1937), our Court said: "A minor has no severable and personal right of action for injuries to his parent." Previously......
-
Berger v. Weber, Docket No. 27377
...Supreme Court indicated, without analysis, that a minor had no right of action for injuries to his parent. Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Co., 280 Mich. 286, 289, 273 N.W. 571 (1937). In light of recent statutory and judicial developments we believe that the time has come for [82 MICHAPP 203] ......
-
Atchison v. Great Western Malting Co.
...77 (Ind.App.1998); Van Vactor's Admx. v. Louisville & N.R.R. Co., 112 Ky. 445, 447-48, 66 S.W. 4 (1902); Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Co., 280 Mich. 286, 288-89, 273 N.W. 571 (1937). These courts sometimes explain that had the legislature intended for the child's minority to toll the statute......
-
Huntington v. Samaritan Hosp.
...Ill.2d 366, 282 N.E.2d 443 (1972); Van Vactor's Adm'x v. Louisville & N.R.R., 112 Ky. 445, 66 S.W. 4 (1902); Cugell v. Sani-Wash Laundry Co., 280 Mich. 286, 273 N.W. 571 (1937); Lundberg v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 261 App.Div. 907, 25 N.Y.S.2d 187 (1941); Mossip v. F.H. Clement & Co.,......