Engen v. Arnold
Decision Date | 21 March 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 36153,36153 |
Citation | 379 P.2d 990,61 Wn.2d 641 |
Parties | AL ENGEN and Goldie Engen, husband and wife, Appellants, v. M. L. ARNOLD and Edna Arnold, husband and wife, Respondents. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Gregory Nelson, O. M. Nelson, Montesano, and John Kirkwood, aberdeen, for appellants.
Parker & Parker, Aberdeen, for respondents.
Plaintiff Al Engen, a partner in the M. K. E. Lumber Co., a lumber milling operation, was injured while participating with defendant M. L. Arnold, a part-time logger, in unloading logs from the defendants' logging truck in the yard of the M. K. E. Lumber Co. The injury was occasioned by logs rolling from the truck contrariwise to the direction intended. Plaintiffs instituted suit claiming damages for personal injuries and medical and hospital expenses.
The issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and causal relation revolve about plaintiffs' allegation of defective truck equipment, and defendants' allegations of inadequate unloading facilities and safety devices at plaintiffs' mill.
Both plaintiff Al Engen and defendant M. L. Arnold were self-employed and, although engaged in extrahazardous work, neither, so far as the record indicates, had elected to be covered by industrial insurance.
Essentially, the trial court submitted to the jury plaintiffs' claim of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and defendants' claim of contributory negligence upon a failure of plaintiffs' company to comply with safety regulations promulgated for log and milling operations by the Department of Labor and Industries.
The jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, assigning error to the giving of certain instructions.
Pending appeal, plaintiff Al Engen died. Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that plaintiffs' action abated upon the death of Engen, and further that Laws of 1961, chapter 137, p. 1681 (cf. RCW 4.20.046), violates Const. Art. 2, § 19.
We will first consider defendants' motion to dismiss.
Laws of 1961, chapter 137, p. 1681 (cf. RCW 4.20.046), provides:
'(2) Where death or an injury to person or property, resulting from a wrongful act, neglect or default, occurs simultaneously with or after the death of a person who would have been liable therefor if his death had not occurred simultaneously with such death or injury or had not intervened between the wrongful act, neglect or default and the resulting death or injury, an action to recover damages for such death or injury may be maintained against the personal representative of such person.
The effective date of this statute was June 8, 1961. Plaintiff Al Engen was injured January 21, 1960. The verdict, favorable to the defendants, was rendered April 18, 1961, and judgment entered thereupon on May 19, 1961. This appeal was timely initiated and, on April 16, 1962, plaintiff Al Engen died.
Defendants assert plaintiffs' action should abate because (a) plaintiffs' cause of action arose prior to June 8, 1961, and was not then survivable; and (b) Laws of 1961, chapter 137, p. 1681 (cf. RCW 4.20.046), was not legislatively intended to, and cannot constitutionally, operate retroactively.
Defendants' contention would be well taken had plaintiff Al Engen died prior to June 8, 1961. This event, however, did not so occur. The first time the question of survival of this action arose was at the time of death. Chapter 137 was then in full force and effect. Absent legislative expression to the contrary, this statute properly controls. Houston & Texas Central R. Co. v. Rogers, 15 Tex.Civ.App. 680, 39 S.W. 1112; City of Marshall v. McAllister, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 159, 43 S.W. 1043; Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. Settle, 19 Tex.Civ.App. 357, 47 S.W. 825; Pritchard v. Savannah Street & Rural Resort R. Co., 87 Ga. 294, 13 S.E. 493, 14 L.R.A. 721. Compare, too, Gorlitzer v. Wolffberg, 208 N.Y. 475, 102 N.E. 528, Mennemeyer v. Hart, 359 Mo. 423, 221 S.W.2d 960; Ross v. Pugh, 277 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App.), Smith v. Finley, 112 Cal.App.2d 599, 246 P.2d 989; Lebkicher v. Crosby, 123 Cal.App.2d 631, 267 P.2d 361; 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 264, p. 1257.
Defendants, however, contend that by inclusion, in chapter 137, supra, of provisions relating to community property liability and wrongful death actions, together with the language of the savings clause, the legislature evinced an affirmative intent that the act should operate only upon causes of action arising after the effective date of the legislation.
We disagree. A reading of chapter 137, as a whole, against the backdrop of the legislative and decisional history preceding it, 1 convinces us that the legislature was intent on preserving causes of action, rather than pleas of abatement, and that the portions of the statute in question were appended with this concept in view.
Defendants lastly contend that because chapter 137, supra, contains provisions dealing with survival of actions community property liability, and wrongful death actions, it violates Const. Art. 2, § 19, which provides:
'No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'
In applying this section of our constitution, we have stated the rule, in Gruen v. State Tax Commission, 35 Wash.2d 1, 22, 211 P.2d 651, 664, as follows:
'* * * Where the title of a legislative act expresses a general subject or purpose which is single, all matters which are naturally and reasonably connected with it, and all measures which will, or may, facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose so stated, are properly included in the act and are germane to its title.'
The title of chapter 137, supra, reads:
'AN ACT relating to survival of actions; adding a new section to chapter 4.20 RCW; repealing section 659, page 165, Laws of 1869, section 722, page 146, Laws of 1877, section 718, Code 1881 and RCW 4.20.040; repealing section 1, chapter 73, Laws of 1953 and RCW 4.20.045; repealing section 149, chapter 156, Laws of 1917 and RCW 11.48.100; and repealing section 150, chapter 156, Laws of 1917 and RCW 11.48.110.'
We are satisfied that the provisions relating to community property liability, and wrongful death actions are naturally, reasonably, and, at least, indirectly connected with the subject of survival of actions. Accordingly, we hold that Const. Art. 2, § 19, has not been violated.
We conclude, upon defendants' motion to dismiss, that plaintiffs' action survives to the extent of such alleged claims of damage as are permitted by the terms of chapter 137.
Turning then to plaintiffs' assignments
In Pink v. Rayonier, Inc., 42 Wash.2d 768, 71, 259 P.2d 629, 631, by way of dictum, we stated:
* * *'
Resort to and review of organic legislation (Laws of 1919, chapter 130, p. 309), concerning promulgation of safety rules and regulations by the Department of Labor and Industries, and particularly to the penalty provisions thereof, satisfies us that the legislature intended such to be applicable to those employers...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacheco v. Ames
...v. Harrison, 4 Wash.2d 265, 103 P.2d 320 (1940)); see also Hogland, 49 Wash.2d at 219-20, 298 P.2d 1099; but cf. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 647, 379 P.2d 990 (1963). That rule, which we reaffirm, is narrower than that enunciated by the Court of Appeals because it only defeats res ipsa......
-
Lyons v. Redding Const. Co.
...P.2d 12 (1966). The following year the defense was abolished in a relationship other than that of master-servant in Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 379 P.2d 990 (1963). The doctrine was further restricted in Feigenbaum v. Brink, 66 Wash.2d 125, 401 P.2d 642 (1965), wherein the reasoning of......
-
Treffry v. Taylor
...842, 389 P.2d 422 (1964); State ex rel. Dawes v. Washington State Highway Comm'n, 63 Wash.2d 34, 385 P.2d 376 (1963); Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 379 P.2d 990 (1963); Yelle v. Bishop, 55 Wash.2d 286, 347 P.2d 1081 (1959); Hammack v. Monroe Street Lbr. Co., 54 Wash.2d 224, 339 P.2d 684 ......
-
Siegler v. Kuhlman
...does it completely explain the cause of the occurrence? If it does, the doctrine should not be submitted to the jury. Engen v. Arnold, 61 Wash.2d 641, 379 P.2d 990 (1963); Emerick v. Mayr, 39 Wash.2d 23, 234 P.2d 1079 It is not disputed that the springs broke, but the evidence was in confli......
-
Survivability of Noneconomic Damages for Tortious Death in Washington
...Rev. Code § 4.20.046 (1996). 194. Warner v. McCaughan, 77 Wash. 2d at 184, 460 P.2d at 276 (quoting Engen v. Arnald, 61 Wash. 2d 641, 644, 379 P.2d 990, 993 195. Wash. Rev. Code § 4.20.060 (1996). 196. WASH. REV. CODE § 4.20.046 (1996); see, e.g., Higbee v. Shorewood Osteopathic Hospital, 1......