Court Opinion

ID: 9627792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:54:42.584633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:45:27.383458
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(No. 2694; April 24th, 1956; 296 Pac. (2d) 251)
1. Death. In Death Action No Damages foe Loss of CONSORTIUM.
Husband had no common law action ior loss of consortium resulting from wife’s death.
Page 166
Action by husband for loss of consortium resulting from his wife’s death due to injuries she received as passanger in defendant’s bus. The District Court, Na-trona County, Franklin B. Sheldon, J., sustained defendant’s demurrer and husband appealed. The Supreme Court, Parker, J., 294 P. 2d 351, affirmed the judgment. On plaintiff’s petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court, Parker, J., held that husband had no common law action for loss of consortium resulting from wife’s death.

Denied.

In support of the petition, there was a brief by Clarence G .Cypreansen and R. N. Ogden, both of Casper, Wyoming.
*167OPINION ON REHEARING
Parker, Justice.
Plaintiff has filed a petition for rehearing in this case, raising four points off alleged error.
In the first three of these he has contended that § 5, c. 143, S. L. of Wyoming, 1951, repeals §§ 3-403, 3-404, and 57-427, W.C.S., 1945. Since this phase of the case was fully discussed in the original opinion and no new authorities are now cited by counsel, there appears to be no necessity that further time or attention be devoted to the subject.
The fourth point in plaintiff’s petition urges that the court erred in “its finding that the applicable Common Law does not accord Plaintiff and Appellant the relief sought by this action.” Plaintiff’s contention apparently stems from his statement: (a) “the Common Law applicable in Wyoming was that existing prior to and on April 10, 1606,” and (b) “a husband [under the 1606 common law] had cause of action for loss of consortium, not only for so long as she [the wife] lived, but for the loss after her death, unless defendant by felony cost the life of the wife, when plaintiff’s remedy was merged in the felony.” As authority for his second and crucial statement, plaintiff relies on:
“44 Assiz 13. 47 E. 3, Bellewe’s Cases, Ravishment pi. 3 — cited in Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, Vol. 1 p. 637. Vol. 3 of Street ‘Foundation of Legal Liability’ p. 71 cites Y. B. 44 Ass. 285 pi. 13; Bellewe’s Cases Ravishment pi. 3.”
He does not quote the Assizes reports but his Hale citation reads:
“ * * * the husband * * * shall recover damages for the rape as well as the goods, tho the wife were dead or divorced after the rape.”
and his Street text states, inter alia:
*168“ * * * the right of action which accrues to a husband by virtue of the abduction of his wife * * * does not perish when the wife * * * happens to die before suit is brought * * * .”
These statements dealing respectively with rape and abduction discuss recovery and rights of action but do not purport to hold that a husband can recover for loss of consortium occurring because of his wife’s death. They are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiff’s contention.
Moreover, we would be loath to interpret a rule of the common law contrary to the views repeatedly expressed by the nation of its inception. English courts have so often pronounced their views that one citation on the subject should suffice. Lord Sumner in the case of Admiralty Commissioners v. S. S. America, L.E. (1917) App. Cas. 38, 51, following a scholarly review of prior cases by Lord Parker of Waddington, succinctly summarized the matter:
“My Lords, never during the many centuries that have passed since reports of the decisions of English Courts first began has the recovery of damages for the death of a human being as a civil injury been recorded. ‡ % * >>
Stronger language could scarcely be imagined. Long before the America case, the subject was considered closed in the United States; witness the views of Justice Hunt in Insurance Co. v. Brame, 95 U. S. 754, 756, 24 L. Ed. 580:
“The authorities are so numerous and so uniform to the proposition, that by the common law no civil action lies for an injury which results-in death, that it is impossible to speak of it as a proposition open to question. It has been decided in many cases in the English courts and in many of the State courts, and no deliberate, well-considered decision to the contrary is to be found . * * * ”
*169Nothing has occurred to alter the law as thus pronounced, and the matter does not admit of controversy in this jurisdiction.
For the reason above stated, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Denied.

Blüme, C. J., and Harnsberger, J., concur.