Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1897 |
| Citation | 73 N.W. 400,70 Minn. 514 |
| Parties | WATSON v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Under Gen. St. 1894, § 5913, damages recovered by reason of the wrongful act of a party causing death are for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin. Held, that under this section of the statute the husband is not the next of kin of the deceased wife.
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; John W. Willis, Judge.
Action by Albert N. Watson, administrator of the estate of Lena E. Watson, deceased, against the St. Paul City Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
F. D. Larrabee, for appellant.
Munn & Thygeson, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for the wrongful act of the defendant in causing the death of plaintiff's wife. It is brought under General Statutes of 1894, § 5913, which provides that the damages recovered in such cases shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin, to be distributed to them in the same proportion as the personal property of the deceased. The complaint is based upon the theory that under the statute the husband is the next of kin of his wife, and entitled to receive the damages for his own benefit. The facts in this case are as follows: About the 4th day of September, 1896, the plaintiff's wife was a passenger upon one of the defendant's street cars in the city of St. Paul, and through its negligence she received severe physical injuries,and from the effects thereof she died in the month of October following. It does not appear that she left any children, heirs, or next of kin, unless her husband, under the statute, shall be deemed next of kin.
At common law, no civil action could be maintained for the negligent killing of another, but, in case of physical injury to the person, caused by the negligence of another, the party injured might maintain an action therefor; and, in addition to this right of action, one might also accrue to such person as stood in the relation of master, parent, or husband, for the recovery of damages for loss of service or society. Tiff. Death Wrongf. Act, § 1. This appears to have been the law of England until a statute was there enacted, in 1846, commonly known as “Lord Campbell's Act,” and which, with some slight modifications, has served as a model for most similar acts of the different states of this country. The act was entitled “An act for compensating the family of persons killed by accident.” See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95. The action might there be brought for the benefit of the wife, husband, and child. In 1847 the legislature of the state of New York followed the example of England, and granted relief to the families of persons killed by wrongful act, neglect, or default. Other states (notably, thereof, Wisconsin and Minnesota) followed the example of England and New York, and placed upon their statutes acts differing considerably in the language in which they are expressed, but in the main features substantially similar to Lord Campbell's act, except that in the Wisconsin law (chapter 71, Sess. Laws 1857) it specifically provides that the husband or widow of such deceased person shall be the beneficiary, if such relative survive him or her, but, if no husband or widow survive the deceased, then his or her lineal descendants, or the lineal ancestors in case of default of such descendants, shall be the beneficiaries. We find it in the Minnesota Revised Statutes of 1851, and it has remained unchanged since its enactment, being similar to General Statutes 1894, § 5913. In 1848 Michigan passed a law identical with ours, and evidently ours was copied from it. When it first came into existence in this state, our statute did not provide that the surviving husband should inherit any of the property of the deceased wife, as at present; hence the law must be construed with reference to such matter, and the class of persons intended to be the beneficiaries under it, which the legislature had in mind at the time when the husband was in no way constituted by the law of inheritance a beneficiary of the wife's property. As the act is a departure from the common law, the legislature doubtless had this in mind, and provided that the beneficiaries therein should be the widow and next of kin. Our law is one of statutory origin, and the damages there given are for the exclusive benefit of the particular class therein designated. It will be seen upon examination that it materially enlarges the right of action for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mattfeld v. Nester
...damages recoverable by the husband as a beneficiary the same as other beneficiaries, except burial expenses. See, Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 514, 73 N.W. 400; 2 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. §§ 2608, 2617. Where, as here, the burial expenses are not included in the amount recovered i......
-
State v. Jones
...common law definition of "next of kin"—the nearest living blood relation —accomplishes this result. See Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 514, 517, 73 N.W. 400, 401 (1897). Hence, we conclude that the common law definition of "next of kin" is the appropriate definition to use in the......
-
Watson v. St. Paul City Railway Company
...Judgment in Former Action not a Bar to This Action. Held, that the judgment in a former action between these parties ( Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 514), not a bar to a recovery in this, because a cause of action was not stated in the complaint in the former action. Second Acti......
-
In re Owsley's Estate
...and in no wise are affected by section 3652. See Rowley v. Stray, 32 Mich. 70;Estate of Kirkendall, 43 Wis. 167;Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 514, 73 N. W. 400. Before leaving the present and preceding points, we think it may be confidently stated as to both that the fundamental......