Eden v. L. & F. Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 07 October 1853 |
| Citation | 53 Ky. 204 |
| Parties | Eden <I>vs.</I> Lexington & Frankfort Railroad Company. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
The only question, and it is an important one, that arises in this case is, whether the husband, whose wife has been killed on a railroad by a collision, produced by the carelessness and misconduct of the agents who were managing and directing the running of the locomotive and cars at the time, can maintain an action against the company for the injury sustained by him in consequence of the death of his wife.
The facts alleged to sustain the action are, that the wife of the plaintiff, who was riding in a carriage, in passing over the railroad, on a public highway with which it was intersected, was killed instantly by the locomotive and cars running against the carriage; that the collision resulted from the carelessness and negligence of the defendant's agents who were conducting the train at the time, and from the failure of the defendants themselves to use, or to require their agents to use, in approaching the intersection of the roads at that point, such precautionary measures as prudence dictated, and such as were essentially necessary to the safety of those persons who might be traveling on this public highway.
The circuit court having decided, upon a demurrer filed by the defendant, that the action could not be maintained, the plaintiff has prosecuted a writ of error to reverse the judgment of that court.
Two grounds have been assumed in argument in support of the judgment: 1. That the killing, if it occurred in the manner alleged by the plaintiff, was in law a felony, and it is a rule of the common law, that before the party injured by any felonious act can seek civil redress for it, the matter should be heard and disposed of before the proper criminal tribunal, which has not been done in the present case. 2. According to the well settled doctrine of the common law, the loss of human life cannot be complained of as a civil injury. That such an action can only be maintained where it is expressly authorized by a statute, and as we have no statute on the subject, the plaintiff's right to the action must be denied, as it has to be determined by common law principles.
1. At common law, a party injured by an act which is felonious, cannot seek civil redress for it until the matter has been investigated and disposed of before the appropriate tribunal. The avowed object of the rule is to prevent the criminal justice of the country from being defeated, and consequently, after a verdict and judgment either of acquittal or conviction, this rule, which is founded upon the general policy of the law, has no further operation.
The existence of this rule has not been recognized in this state. In the case of Williams v. Hedricks, Printed Decisions, 203, it was expressly repudiated as having been based on a mistaken policy, and the court held that reason and justice alike dictate, that for every civil injury compensation should be made; and that when a person committed a criminal offense he was not only liable to a prosecution for the public wrong, but also to an action for the civil injury. This rule has also been changed by express legislation. By the Revised Statutes it is enacted, (chapter 28, section 4,) that "the commission of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc
...ancient common-law rule that a personal cause of action in tort did not survive the death of its possessor, e.g., Eden v. Lexington & Frankfort R. Co., 53 Ky. 204, 206 (1853); and the decision in Baker v. Bolton itself may have been influenced by this principle. Holdsworth, The Origin of th......
-
Negron v. Llarena
...cases allowing for recovery for wrongful death. Other jurisdictions quickly followed that lead. Kentucky, in Eden v. Lexington & Frankfort Railroad Co., 53 Ky. 204 (1853), became the first state to cite Carey approvingly as the authoritative interpretation of the common law. New York overru......
-
Giardina v. Bennett
...the common law of the American states. See, e.g., Carey v. Berkshire R.R., 55 Mass. 475, 48 Am.Dec. 616 (1848); Eden v. Lexington & Frankfort R. Co., 53 Ky. 204, 206 (1853). New Jersey fully adopted this common-law rule. See, e.g., Myers v. Holborn, 58 N.J.L. 193 (E. & A.1895); Grosso v. De......
-
Mattfeld v. Nester
...without sound reason or as resting upon reasons now entirely nonexistent or not adapted to our conditions. Some cases like Eden v. Lexington & Frankfort R. Co. supra, follow generally the English rule that a death can give rise to no action for damages, but allow the husband to recover for ......