death and that judgment is reversed insofar as it held that Plaintiff could not maintain an action for decedent’s pain and suffering. Rule of Law: The court said damages for loss of property, loss of wages and the pain and suffering of a decedent are permitted under survival statutes when the decedent later dies from injuries which created the cause of action. Reasoning: The Survival Statute is cited for Plaintiff’s claim for damages for the decedent’s physical and mental suffering and loss of wages for the nine days after his injury and for the loss of his clothing worn at the time of his injury. Previously, this Court held that the Survival Statute was intended to allow the survival of a cause of action only when the injured party died from something other than that which caused the injuries which gave rise to the original cause of action. The Wrongful Death Act limits recovery of pecuniary losses from loss of support to the surviving spouse or next of kin. In Holton , the statutes were separate and different, however the remedy was grievously incomplete. The court said there might be a substantial loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and to say that there can only be recovery for his wrongful death would be to provide an inadequate injustice. The Supreme Court stated that decisions that allow an action for fatal injuries in addition to wrongful death are preferable to the Court’s previous holdings. Concurrences / Dissents : None Analysis : I agree with the Supreme Court holding. I think as in Holton, it would be an injustice to only award recovery for wrongful death. To have a full liability and full recovery there must be an action allowed for damages up to the time of death as well as after.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read the whole page?
- Fall '14
- Marie Boyd
- Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of Illinois