Haugh v. Kilmer
This text of 692 P.2d 631 (Haugh v. Kilmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a wrongful death action. ORS 30.020(1). Plaintiff, as personal representative of decedent’s estate, appeals from a summary judgment. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in deciding, as a matter of law, that a release signed by the parents of decedent, before plaintiffs appointment as personal representative, barred the action. We affirm.
In 1981, decedent, a minor, was struck and killed by a van operated by defendant Kilmer and owned by defendant North Clackamas County School District. Decedent’s only survivors are his parents. In November, 1981, they signed a release in favor of defendants for $10,105.22. In August, 1983, plaintiff was appointed personal representative of decedent’s estate and filed the wrongful death action. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the parents’ release barred the action. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
Wrongful death actions are governed by ORS 30.020(1), which provides:
“When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the decedent, for the benefit of the decedent’s surviving spouse, surviving children, surviving parents and other individuals, if any, who under the law of intestate succession of the state of the decedent’s domicile would be entitled to inherit the personal property of the decedent, may maintain an action against the wrongdoer, if the decedent might have maintained an action, had he lived, against the wrongdoer for an injury done by the same act or omission.”
Essentially, plaintiff argues that, because a wrongful death action may only be brought by the personal representative of the decedent, only the personal representative has the power to settle a wrongful death claim. We disagree.
Under ORS 30.020(1), the personal representative acts as a nominal party on behalf of statutorily enumerated persons. In Christensen v. Epley, 287 Or 539, 545, 601 P2d 1216 (1979), the court stated:
“[T]he right of action in a case such as this is not primarily for the benefit of the estate, but for the benefit of the spouse [348]*348and children of the decedent as the ‘real parties in interest,’ with the personal representative as ‘a mere nominal party,’ who sues for their benefit for the recovery of ‘the value of the life lost to them.’
In the present case, decedent’s parents were the sole beneficiaries under ORS 30.020(1).1 A rule allowing the sole statutory beneficiaries to settle a wrongful death action before the appointment of a personal representative is premised on the important policy consideration favoring compromises and the practical consideration that the sole beneficiaries are the real parties in interest. The rule forecloses plaintiffs action for wrongful death.2
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
692 P.2d 631, 71 Or. App. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haugh-v-kilmer-orctapp-1984.