Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/277/335.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:46:59+00:00

Document:
Messrs. Luther Burns, of Topeka, Kan., M. L. Bell and W. F. Dickinson, both of Chicago, Ill., T. P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., J. E. Du Mars, of Topeka, Kan., and W. D. Vance, of Belleville, Kan., for petitioner. [277 U.S. 335, 336] Messrs. Edwin C. Brandenburg, of Washington, D. C., and John F. McClure, of Belleville, Kan., for respondent.
May 4, 1920, Goodyear died. April 19, 1921, relying upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, his widow, as administratrix and in behalf of herself and her children, brought this action for damages against the Director General in the district court, Republic county, Kan. She alleged that her husband's death resulted from the injuries suffered July 31, 1919. As a bar to the action, the answer set up the settlement and release above referred to; and the administratrix replied that the beneficiaries had a separate cause of action for their pecuniary damage which the decedent could not release.
Judgment for the Director General was reversed by the Supreme Court. It held the quoted instruction erroneous. The opinion shows care and research, and forcefully sets out the argument against the power of an injured employee to destroy the right of dependents to recover in event of his death. Goodyear v. Davis, 114 Kan. 557, 220 P. 282, 39 A. L. R. 563; Id., 115 Kan. 20, 220 P. 1049, 39 A. L. R. 563.
Answering special questions, the jury found that no fraud attended the settlement; Goodyear was mentally capable of transacting business at the time; there was no mutual mistake as to his physical condition; the release was not given under the mistaken belief that the material results of his injuries had disappeared; and nothing was allowed for funeral expenses.
Upon a verdict in her favor for $5,000, judgment went for the administratrix, which the Supreme Court af- [277 U.S. 335, 339] firmed, definitely approving the instruction last quoted. Goodyear v. Davis, 121 Kan. 392, 247 P. 446. She died July 10, 1926, and Edward Goodyear was duly substituted by order of Supreme Court of Kansas.
The question for our decision is whether the settlement between Goodyear and the employer, made advisedly and in good faith, barred an action by dependents for their pecuniary damages through his death.
'Sec. 9. That any right of action given by this act to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then [277 U.S. 335, 340] of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, but in such cases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury.' 45 USCA 59; Comp. St. 8665.
'We think the act declares two distinct and independent liabilities, resting, of course, upon the common foundation of a wrongful injury, but based upon altogether different principles. ... The act of 1908 does not provide for any survival of the right of action created in behalf of an injured employee. That right of action was therefore extinguished. ... The obvious purpose of Congress was to save a right of action to certain relatives dependent upon an employee wrongfully injured, for the loss and damage resulting to them financially by reason of the wrongful death. ... This cause of action is independent of any cause of action which the decedent had, and includes no damages which he might have recovered for his injury if he had survived. It is one beyond that which the decedent had-one proceeding upon altogether different principles. It is a liability for the loss and damage ... resulting to them and for that only.
'The statute in giving an action for the benefit of certain members of the family of the decedent is essentially identical with the first act which ever provided for a cause [277 U.S. 335, 341] of action arising out of the death of a human being, that of 9 and 10 Victoria, known as Lord Campbell's Act. ... But as the foundation of the right of action is the original wrongful injury to the decedent, it has been generally held that the new action is a right dependent upon the existence of a right in the decedent immediately before his death to have maintained an action for his wrongful injury. Tiffany, Death by Wrongful Act, 124; Louisville E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 152 U.S. 230 (14 S. Ct. 579); Read v. G. E. Ry., L. R. 3 Q. B. 555; Hecht v. O. & M. Ry., 132 Ind. 507 (132 N. E. 302); Fowlkes v. Nashville & Decatur R. R. Co., 9 Heisk. 829; Littlewood v. Mayor, 89 N. Y. 24 (42 Am. Rep. 271); Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Cassin, 111 Ga. 575 (36 S. E. 881, 50 L. R. A. 694).
The injuries were due primarily to the default of the engineer, and the employer never became liable to him.
In Reading Co. v. Koons, Adm'r, 271 U.S. 58, 64 , 46 S. Ct. 405, the administrator sought recovery by suit commenced seven years after the employee's death, but within two years after the granting of administration. This court declared the action was barred.
And no later opinion here has given expression to any other view.
By the overwhelming weight of judicial authority, where a statute of the nature of Lord Campbell's Act in effect gives a right to recover damages for the benefit of dependents, the remedy depends upon the existence in the decedent at the time of his death of a right of action to recover for such injury. A settlement by the wrongdoer with the injured person, in the absence of fraud or mistake, precludes any remedy by the personal representative based upon the same wrongful act. Construing the statute of Kansas, the Supreme Court of that state seems to have accepted this generally approved doctrine. Fuller, Adm'x, v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 124 Kan. 66, 257 P. 971.
'It is hardly possible to place the general holding upon any very logical ground. The position taken by the courts is fairly enough summed up as follows: 'Whether the right of action is a transmitted right or an original right; whether it be created by a survival statute or by a statute creating an independent right, the general concensus of opinion seems to be that the gist and foundation of the right in all cases is the wrongful act, and that for such wrongful act but one recovery should be had, and that, if the deceased had received satisfaction in his lifetime, either by settlement and adjustment or by adjudication in the courts, no further right of action existed."
See Strode v. Transit Co., 197 Mo. 616, 95 S. W. 851, 7 Ann. Cas. 1084. See, also, Edwards v. Chemical Co., 170 N. C. 551, 87 S. E. 635, L. R. A. 1916D, 121; Louisville R. Co. v. Raymond's Adm'r, 135 Ky. 738, 123 S. W. 281, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 176; Perry's Adm'r v. L. & N. R. Co., 199 Ky. 396, 251 S. W. 202, 39 A. L. R. 560; State v. United Rys., 121 Md. 457, 88 A. 229, L. R. A. 1915E, 1163; Hill v. Penn. Ry. Co., 178 Pa. 223, 35 A. 997, 35 L. R. A. 196, 56 Am. St. Rep. 754.
Considering the repeated holdings of many courts of last resort, the declarations by this court, and the probable ill consequences to both employees and employers which would follow the adoption of the contrary view, we must conclude that the settlement and release relieved the Director General from all liability for damages consequent upon the injuries received by Goodyear and his death.
The statute of 1908 is entitled 'An act relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employees in certain cases.' Fifteen years ago this court affirmed that, in so far as it gives an action for the benefit of dependents, the statute is essentially identical with Lord Campbell's Act. Continued adherence to this view [277 U.S. 335, 346] is emphasized by repeated holdings that dependents can recover only pecuniary damages. American Railroad Co. of Porto Rico v. Didricksen, 227 U.S. 145, 149 , 33 S. Ct. 224; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U.S. 173 , 33 S. Ct. 426; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, Adm's, 241 U.S. 485 , 36 S. Ct. 630; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Gainey, Adm'r, 241 U.S. 494 , 36 S. Ct. 633; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Mosler (Nov. 21, 1927) 275 U.S. 133 , 48 S. Ct. 49. Neither statute defines the nature of the damages to be recovered; this was left for interpretation. We followed the construction given the earlier one when it became necessary to interpret and apply the later and similar act.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.