Killian v. Southern Ry. Co

Decision Date14 May 1901
CitationKillian v. Southern Ry. Co, 38 S.E. 873, 128 N.C. 261 (N.C. 1901)
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesKILLIAN . v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

WRONGFUL DEATH—ACTION BY PARENT.

A father caunot maintain an action in his individual capacity for the negligent killing of his son, either at common law, or under Code, §§ 1498, 1499. which give a right of action for wrongful killing, but only authorize such action to be maintained by the executor, administrator, or collector of deceased.

Appeal from superior court, Catawba county; Councill, Judge.

Action by H. C. Killian against the Southern Railway Company for the wrongful killing of plaintiff's son. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. B. Cllne and T. M. Hufham, for appellant.

Geo. F. Bason, for appellee.

CLARK, J. This is an action by a father for the negligent killing of his son. Upon the evidence the plaintiff was nonsuited, and appealed; but in this court the defendant interposed a preliminary plea, ore tenus, to dismiss the action because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Rule 27 of this court (27 S. E. viii.); Manning v. Railroad Co., 122 N. C. 825, 28 S. E. 963. The Code (section 1498) provides that whenever "the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default of another, " an action therefor may be brought by "the executor, administrator or collector of the decedent." Section 1499 provides that "the plaintiff in such action may recover such damages as are a fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injury resulting from such death, " and section 1500 provides for the application and distribution of such recovery. At common law, this action could not have been maintained. Baker v. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493, in which Lord Ellenborough tersely stated the doctrine of the common law to be, "In a civil suit, the death of a human being cannot be complained of as an injury." Where the injury subsequently resulted in death the action abated, —"Actio personalis moritur cum persona." Hence, though many courts doubted the soundness of the reasoning as applied to this class of cases, it was uniformly held in England and this country that the right of action ceased upon the death of the injured party. 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 855, and a page of authorities there cited, — especially Carey v. Railroad Co., 55 Mass 475, 48 Am. Dec. 610; Eden v. Railroad Co., 53 Ky. 204; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180. In Insurance Co. v. Brame, 95 U. S., at page 756, 24 L. Ed. 582, it is said: "The authorities are so numerous and so uniform to the proposition that by the common law no civil action lies for an injury which results in death, that it is impossible to speak of it as a proposition open to question. It has been decided in many cases in the English courts and in many of the state courts, and no deliberate, well-considered decision to the contrary is to be found." It is true, the father was entitled to the services of his son, if he had lived, till his majority, but when the death of the son ensued the cause of action abated. It is said in Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180, upon a review of the English authorities (Cooley, J., concurring), that one case, and only one (Baker v. Bolton, supra), held that at common law the father could recover, after the death of the child, even for the value of his services from the time of the injury up to the date of the death; but, as here the death was instantaneous, that case does not apply. In England this rule of the common law was changed by Lord Campbell's act (9 & 10 Vict.), which gave the right of action for injuries sustained by neglect or wrongful act of another, notwithstanding the death of the person injured. That act began by expressly reciting that at common law an action could not be maintained in such cases. This act has been copied, with many variations, in the states of the Union, but in nearly every instance such acts give the right of action to the personal...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
49 cases
  • Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1913
    ... ... Bartlett v ... Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 21 Okl. 415, 96 P. 468; ... Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, supra; Killian ... v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 N.C. 261, 38 S.E. 873; ... McCarthy, Adm'x, v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., ... 18 Kan. 46, 26 Am. Rep. 742; ... ...
  • Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1913
    ...Bartlett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 21 Okla. 415, 96 P. 468; Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, supra; Killian v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 N.C. 261, 38 S. E: 873; McCarthy, Adm'x, v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 18 Kan. 46, 26 Am. Rep. 742; Holston et ux. v. Dayton Coal & Iron Co.,......
  • Gay v. Thompson, 207
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1966
    ...with many variations, in all, or practically all, the states of this nation, as well as by the U. S. Congress. Killian v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 N.C. 261, 38 S.E. 873; 25 A C.J.S. Death § In Armentrout v. Hughes, supra, the Court, after stating that Lord Campbell's Act was enacted in England......
  • Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1982
    ...28A-18-2). Parents may not maintain such actions in their individual capacities for deaths of their children. Killian v. Southern Ry. Co., 128 N.C. 261, 38 S.E. 873 (1901); Scarlett v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 284, 20 S.E. 459 (1894). A foreign administrator lacks "capacity to sue" in a wrongful d......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 38 WRONGFUL DEATH
    • United States
    • North Carolina Bar Association Elements of Civil Causes of Action in North Carolina (NCBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...of action to recover damages for wrongful death and right of action conferred by statute did not exist before); Killian v. S. R. Co., 128 N.C. 261, 38 S.E. 873 (1901); Christenbury v. Hedrick, 32 N.C. App. 708, 234 S.E.2d 3 (1977) (action for wrongful death did not exist at common law and r......