Hale v. Hale
| Decision Date | 21 March 1950 |
| Parties | Hale v. Hale (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Samuel Hale, as administrator of the estates of Susan Hale and Carol Lynn Hale, deceased, brought separate actions against Henry C. Hale for intestates' death as alleged results of defendant's negligent operation of an automobile. From judgments of the Floyd Circuit Court, Edward P. Hill, J., dismissing the petitions, plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Morris, C., held that the common law disability of a parent to sue a child or vice versa for tort is inapplicable to wrongful death actions by administrator of defendant's deceased mother's and minor child's estates.
Judgments reversed.
1. Death. — The common law disability of parent to sue child or vice versa for tort is inapplicable to wrongful death actions by administrator of defendant's deceased mother's and minor child's estates. KRS 411.130; Const. sec. 241.
2. Death. — Recovery of damages by administrator of estates of deceased mother and minor daughter of defendant in wrongful death actions should be reduced by amount of defendant's distributive share of estates after payment of decedents' funeral expenses and administrative costs. KRS 411.130.
3. Death. — Negligence of husband should not be imputed to wife, so as to bar recovery of damages for her benefit from husband for their minor child's death by administrator of child's estate, solely because of marital relations. KRS 411.130.
Combs & Combs for appellant.
Harkins & Harkins for appellees.
Before Edward P. Hill, Judge.
MORRIS, COMMISSIONER.
Reversing.
On August 9, 1947, appellee, the owner and operator of a station wagon, was returning from a trip to Seymour, Missouri. As he and those who were riding in the vehicle were nearing their home in Floyd County, appellee lost control and the vehicle ran over a high embankment, resulting in the deaths of Susan and Carol Lynn Hale. Thereafter appellant qualified as administrator of the estates of the two decedents.
Following his qualification the administrator instituted separate actions against appellee. In his petitions, and two or three amendments, he alleged that at the time of their deaths the two were invited guests; that their deaths were caused by the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which the automobile was operated at the time of the accident.
Defendant demurred to each petition and at the same time moved to have the plaintiff make them more definite by stating the relationship of the respective parties. There was no immediate ruling on these dilatory pleas and separate answers were filed. They admitted the qualification of the personal representative, the deaths of the two at the time and place mentioned, denied all charges of negligence, and alleged that Susan Hale was at the time guilty of contributory negligence and had assumed the risk. The answer in the child's case did not set up these defenses. What we take to be the chief defense is contained in the affirmative plea, which disclosed the relationship of the respective parties.
It was stated that Susan Hale, a widow, was the mother of appellant and appellee, and another son, Edgar; these were her sole survivors and heirs, and would share equally in her estate. Carol Lynn was the one year old daughter of Henry, and he and his wife were her heirs-at-law and would share her estate. It was specifically plead, either as a plea in abatement, or a lack of legal capacity to sue or recover for the death of the two, that "under the laws of the State of Kentucky a parent may not maintain an action for tort against a child, nor a child against a parent, either directly or indirectly; that the claim asserted in the petition herein is of such nature, against public policy and the laws of Kentucky, therefore, cannot be maintained." A demurrer was overruled and a reply admitted the relationships, and denied the conclusion.
The pleadings and procedure, with the unimportant exception above noted were the same, and upon submission the court sustained defendant's demurrer to each petition, and plaintiff declining to plead further petitions were dismissed, with appeal granted in each case. The record does not show that the court expressed the ground upon which he sustained the demurrers, but when we turn to the briefs we find that there are two points discussed. First whether the administrator of a deceased person may sue one of the beneficiaries under KRS 411.130 for the wrongful death of the decedent where other beneficiaries, capable of taking under the statute, are in existence. Second, whether the negligence of a father should be imputed to the mother in a suit by the administrator of the estate of their deceased child against the father. In Robinson's Adm'r v. Robinson, 188 Ky. 49, 220 S.W. 1074, and in Bays et al. v. Cox's Adm'r, 1950, 312 Ky. 867, 229 S.W. 2d 737 this court held that the administrator of a deceased wife could sue her husband for wrongful death for the benefit of their children. In such case recovery by the administrator is an amount equal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial