Seney v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co

• Decision Date: 21 October 1904
• Citation: 101 N.W. 76,125 Iowa 290
• Parties: ROBERT J. SENEY, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

101 N.W. 76

125 Iowa 290

ROBERT J. SENEY, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 21, 1904

Appeal from Woodbury District Court.-- HON. WILLIAM HUTCHINSON Judge.

ACTION to recover damages for the instant death of plaintiff's wife, due to physical injuries resulting from defendant's negligence. A demurrer to plaintiff's petition having been sustained, plaintiff elected to stand on his pleading and judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.-- Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Henderson & Fribourg, for appellant.

H. H Field and Shull & Farnsworth, for appellee.

OPINION

MCCLAIN, J.

In the case of Major v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 115 Iowa 309, 88 N.W. 815, we have recently held that the wife has no right of action against a railroad company for injuries inflicted on her husband through negligence of the employes of the company resulting in his instant death. Counsel for appellant seek to distinguish between that case and the present case on the ground that at common law the wife had no right of action for injuries to her husband impairing his capacity for providing maintenance and support, while the husband did have a right of action for loss of services of the wife due to injury from the wrongful act of another; that is, that the husband is recognized by the common law as having a property right in the wife's services, while the wife has no corresponding property right in the support which she is entitled to receive from her husband. The distinction may be conceded, but plaintiff's right of recovery is not thereby established. By well-settled principles of the common law explained in the Major Case supra, no person can recover damages from another for wilfully or negligently causing the instant death of a third person, no matter what may be the relation between the deceased person and the plaintiff. By statutory provisions certain exceptions have been made to this well-recognized common-law rule, such as that a parent may recover damages for the death of a minor child (Code, section 3471), and that the legal representative may maintain any action which might have been maintained by the deceased, if he had survived the injury (Code section 3445). But there is no statutory provision authorizing a recovery by a husband for injuries to the wife causing her instant death. The husband certainly has no better right of action...