Kowalsky v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 06 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | File 54142 |
| Citation | 4 Conn.Supp. 219 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | CHARLES KOWALSKY v. JOHN D. LEONARD, ET AL. |
Present Hon. ERNEST A. INGLIS, Judge.
Jacob Dunn; Edward Pomerantz, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Pelgrift & Blumenfeld, Attorneys for the Defendants.
The plaintiff, a father, seeks to recover from a tort-feasor for the loss of the services of his minor son resulting from the wrongful death of that son. The defendant demurred to the complaint.
Held " It is ... the law in this state that, except as provided by statute, there is no cause of action in favor of anyone for damages resulting to him for the wrongful death of another person" .
" The common law of this state is that a parent has no cause of action to recover for the loss of his child's services resulting from the death of the child."
The cases of Cross v. Guthrey, 2 Root 90, and Conn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. N.Y. and N. H. R. R Co., 25 Conn. 265, commented upon and the latter case approved.
This demurrer raises the question as to whether a father may recover from a tort-feasor for the loss of the services of his minor son resulting from the wrongful death of that son.
It is fundamental that, at common law no cause of action would lie in favor of anyone for wrongful death and this rule has been almost universally applied so as to deny to surviving husbands the right to recover for loss of consortium resulting from wrongful death of their wives and to surviving parents of children killed by the wrongful act the right to recover for loss of services after the death.
Schouler, Domestic Relations, 6th Ed. Vol. 1, Sec. 762; Smith v. Tucker (Tenn.) 270 S.W. 66, 73; Grosso v. Delaware L. & W. R. R. Co., 50 N. J. L. 317, 13 A. 233; Myers v. Holborn, 58 N. J. L. 193, 33 A. 398; Callaghan v. Lake Hopatcong Ice Co. (N. J.) 54 A. 223; Sherman v. Johnson (Vt.) 2 A. 707; Sullivan v. Union Pac. R. Co . 2 F. 447.
The only doubt that such is the law of this state arises by reason of the case of Cross v. Guthrey, 2 Root 99. In that case a husband was suing for loss of consortium resulting from the death of his wife caused by malpractice. The verdict had been for the plaintiff and a motion for arrest of judgment had been made on the ground that the offense charged was a felony and the private injury was merged in the public offense. That contention of course was one of the reasons upon which the common law rule forbidding recovery for wrongful death was based. The court in deciding the case and upholding the verdict said simply that the rule contended for " is applicable in England only to capital crimes where from necessity the offender must go unpunished or the injured go unredressed" .
The doubt raised by that case seems to be definitely dispensed, however, by the case of Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. N.Y. and N.H. R.R. Co . 25 Conn. 265. In that case the plaintiff was seeking to recover the amount it had been called upon to pay under one of its life insurance policies by reason of the wrongful death of one of its insured caused by the defendant. The right of recovery was denied and one of the grounds given for that denial was that " the common law is that the death of a human being whatever may be its consequences in a pecuniary or in any other aspect is not an actionable injury" .
The reason for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucier v. Hittleman
...We have not had occasion to determine the precise question now Before us. It was, however, presented to the Superior Court in Kowalsky v. Leonard, 4 Conn.Supp. 219, and a of action by the parent was denied. The court, Inglis, J., after citing authorities supporting the application of the co......