Dorothy Sornborger, of the Estate of Annie Miller Pope New-Bold v. District Dental Laboratory, Inc., and Carl I. Sanderson, Jr.

D.C. Circuit

Dorothy Sornborger, of the Estate of Annie Miller Pope New-Bold v. District Dental Laboratory, Inc., and Carl I. Sanderson, Jr.

266 F.2d 694, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 290, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1959

Docket19-1223

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 266 F.2d 694 (Dorothy Sornborger, of the Estate of Annie Miller Pope New-Bold v. District Dental Laboratory, Inc., and Carl I. Sanderson, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorothy Sornborger, of the Estate of Annie Miller Pope New-Bold v. District Dental Laboratory, Inc., and Carl I. Sanderson, Jr., 266 F.2d 694, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 290, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this appeal have agreed on the following statement of the question before us, namely:

“Whether an act of negligence causing death can give rise simultaneously to two separate and independent claims, viz., one under the Wrongful Death Act, § 16-1201, D.C.Code, and another under the Survival Act, § 12-101, D.C.Code, and whether, therefore, the District Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to include a demand for damages under the Survival Act over and above the initial demand for damages under the Wrongful Death Act on the sole ground that the remedies respectively provided by these statutes are mutually exclusive.”

The question must be answered in the affirmative. See Hudson v. Lazarus, 1954, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344; 2 Harper and J ames, Law of Torts § 24.2 (1956); Schumacher, Rights of Action Under Death and Survival Statutes, 23 Mich.L.Rev. 114 (1924). The District Court should not have denied amendment of the complaint on the ground stated. Difficulties may of course arise in the assessment of damages, if the case reaches that stage. But we do not know what the proof will show, or even whether the jury will find the defendants liable. Accordingly, we do not deem it appropriate here to discuss the subject of damages, other than to state our approval of what was said in the Hudson case, and to call the parties’ attention to the authorities there cited.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this appeal have agreed on the following statement of the question before us, namely:

“Whether an act of negligence causing death can give rise simultaneously to two separate and independent claims, viz., one under the Wrongful Death Act, § 16-1201, D.C.Code, and another under the Survival Act, § 12-101, D.C.Code, and whether, therefore, the District Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to include a demand for damages under the Survival Act over and above the initial demand for damages under the Wrongful Death Act on the sole ground that the remedies respectively provided by these statutes are mutually exclusive.”

The question must be answered in the affirmative. See Hudson v. Lazarus, 1954, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344; 2 Harper and J ames, Law of Torts § 24.2 (1956); Schumacher, Rights of Action Under Death and Survival Statutes, 23 Mich.L.Rev. 114 (1924). The District Court should not have denied amendment of the complaint on the ground stated. Difficulties may of course arise in the assessment of damages, if the case reaches that stage. But we do not know what the proof will show, or even whether the jury will find the defendants liable. Accordingly, we do not deem it appropriate here to discuss the subject of damages, other than to state our approval of what was said in the Hudson case, and to call the parties’ attention to the authorities there cited.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F.2d 694, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 290, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-sornborger-of-the-estate-of-annie-miller-pope-new-bold-v-district-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack