Court Opinion

ID: 9686479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:50:49.52704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.277884
License: Public Domain

Riley, C.J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority that the Legislature enacted the wrongful death statute in 1939, now MCL 600.2922; MSA 27A.2922, intending to eliminate the distinction between instantaneous and noninstantaneous deaths. However, I disagree with the majority that the effect of the Legislature so doing is to extend the statute of limitations in every wrongful death action for the period provided in the tolling provision. Thus, I dissent.
While I agree with the majority that resolution of the issue in this case requires an historical examination of the wrongful death act, I shall not unduly lengthen this opinion by repeating what has already been written. Suffice to say that the *442majority here, as well as the Court in Hawkins v Regional Med Labs, 415 Mich 420, 428-439; 329 NW2d 729 (1982), Rhule v Armstrong, 384 Mich 709, 712-716; 187 NW2d 223 (1971), and the majority opinion, as well as Justice Sharpe’s dissent in In re Olney Estate, 309 Mich 65; 14 NW2d 574 (1944), all thoroughly analyze the antecedents, and subsequent development of the wrongful death statute. My reading of the statute and its history leads me to conclude that a death action accrues at death, and thus does not survive death. For that reason I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, but on a different basis.
i
The majority states that in Michigan a wrongful death action may be characterized as surviving by law because "[t]he claim 'survives’ the decedent’s death to vest in those who suffer a loss through the death — it 'survives’ to those who are entitled to claim damages under the wrongful death act.” Ante, pp 439-440.
In so stating, the majority distorts the technical definition of a survival action. All actions for wrongful death must be prosecuted under the provisions of the wrongful death statute. MCL 600.2921; MSA 27A.2921. The claim vests only because of, and pursuant to, the wrongful death statute. As used in MCL 600.5852; MSA 27A.5852, ''survive by law” is a term of art, not to be used in a colloquial sense or as a layman would. Actions which survive by law are those which are not extinguished by the decedent’s death. Logically, therefore, the action must be in existence before the decedent’s death in order to not be extinguished by the death. The proper analysis must, therefore, focus on the nature and characteristics *443of the action and the time at which it comes into existence.
I read the 1939 amendment as having been intended to create one unified action for wrongfully caused deaths, whether the deaths were instantaneous or noninstantaneous. This consolidation revised the damages recoverable under the former survival actions and death actions, resulting in a hybrid action. Further, all actions for death must be brought pursuant to the statutory provisions. The survival action was incorporated into the death statute indicating a legislative emphasis on the death aspect rather than the underlying wrong which causes the death. Thus, I conclude that a wrongful death action is not the same action as one for the underlying wrongful conduct, with additional damages recoverable for the death. I agree with Justice Sharpe’s dissent in In re Olney where he stated:
We conclude that the amendment to the death act excludes the cause of action for injuries which the deceased party had during his lifetime from the operation of the survival act, when the injured party dies prior to the bringing of an action; that the amendment does not join in a single cause of action two separate causes of action for injuries and death but creates an entirely new statutory cause of action applicable to all cases where death results from wrongful act, whether occurring "instantaneously” or as the result of injuries. The legislature has made not only the wrongful act, neglect or default of the wrongdoer a necessary element in the cause of action, but also the death of the injured party is a necessary fact to the right of his representative to maintain an action under this amendment. Death is a part of the substance or essence of the right.
It inevitably follows that the cause of action for injuries resulting in death created by this statute *444does not arise or come into being until the death occurs. The cause of action which the injured party has for his injuries now abates upon his death, at which time the new cause of action in his personal representative created by the statute arises. The legislature has given a new right of recovery in substitution for the right which the injured party had during his lifetime, the basis of which is the same wrongful act, but which does not come into being until his death. [In re Olney, supra at 77-78.][1] [Citations omitted.]
In Rhule, supra, this Court unanimously followed this approach in deciding that the saving provision does not apply to wrongful death actions.
The wrongful death act action is an independent action which arises solely on the date of and because of the wrongfully injured person’s death. It does not "survive by law” the wrongfully injured person’s death. [Rhule, supra at 715-716.]
See also Coury v General Motors Corp, 376 Mich 248; 137 NW2d 134 (1965), overruled in Hawkins, supra at 437.
Of course, Hawkins reversed Rhule and Coury, and held that wrongful death actions accrue at the time of the wrongful conduct rather than at death.
Prior to the 1939 amendment of the wrongful death act, there was little difficulty in assessing when a cause of action accrued and hence when the limitations period began to run. Under both the survival act and death act the focus was on the date of the wrongful act. In Lincoln v Detroit & M R Co, [179 Mich 189, 196; 146 NW 405 (1914)], this Court reasoned that as to actions under either *445the death act or the survival act, "[b]oth are dependent on the injury.” A cause of action brought under the death act accrued at the date of the wrongful act, which of course was effectively the same as the date of death. Lincoln, supra. Whenever there was survival for a period after the wrongful act, the cause of action, if any, accrued at the time of the wrongful act. Ford v Maney’s Estate, supra. There was nothing inconsistent in the approach under either act. The focus has always been on the date of the wrong. Therefore, and because the 1939 amendment repealed only the inconsistencies between the formerly mutually exclusive causes of action, for purposes of determining the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations the focus remains on the date of the wrongful act, not on the date of death.” [Hawkins, supra at 435.]
I disagree with Hawkins for a number of reasons. First, its holding is not supported by the authorities cited. Hawkins cited Lincoln v Detroit & M R Co for the proposition that "[a] cause of action brought under the death act [prior to the 1939 amendment] accrued at the date of the wrongful act, which of course was effectively the same as the date of death.” Hawkins, supra at 435. Of course this is true, but only because in order for an action to have been maintained under the death act the death must have resulted instantaneously. However, the event which triggered the accrual of the action was not the wrongful conduct, but in fact the death.
The action accrues to the surviving beneficiary mentioned in the statute by reason of the death of the injured person caused by the wrongful act of another. It is strictly not proper to say that it is a cause of action which survives; it is rather a new action given by [the death statute]. [Lincoln, supra at 195. Emphasis added.]
*446While it is true that Lincoln did contain language to the effect that survival actions and death actions were "[b]oth . . . dependent on the injury,” Hawkins, supra at 435, nothing about that fact changes the conclusion that the death action accrues by reason of the death. There must necessarily be an injury in order for there to be a death.
Furthermore, Hawkins is contrary to the rule in most jurisdictions that a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue upon the wrongful conduct, but on the death. See Larson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 427 Mich 301, 320; 399 NW2d 1 (1986) (Levin, J., separate opinion). See also sources cited id. at 311, n 4. While this consideration alone is certainly no reason to abandon the Hawkins rule, it should also be noted that Hawkins is contrary to the general principles of accrual in this state. In Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Co, 388 Mich 146; 200 NW2d 70 (1972), this Court held that a cause of action accrues at the time the plaintiff may bring an action on the wrong. In Williams v Polgar, 391 Mich 6, 25; 215 NW2d 149 (1974), the Court cited Connelly for the proposition that running the statute of limitations from the day the tortious force is put into motion would "destroy plaintiff’s cause of action before it even arose.”
The same may also be said for the Hawkins accrual date. As noted by Justice Sharpe in In re Olney, supra at 78, "[djeath is a part of the substance or essence of the right” to bring a wrongful death action. Where the decedent dies after the statute of limitations has run, that person will lose the right to bring a wrongful death action, before he even had the ability to do so. See also Larson, supra (adopting date of discovery rule of accrual in asbestosis cases because of potential for statute of limitations running before plaintiff even knew of injury).
*447Finally, Hawkins purported to overrule Rhule stating:
[T]he [Rhule] Court incorrectly relied on the dissenting opinion of Justice Sharpe in In re Olney’s Estate, supra, as if it were the majority, thus concluding that the 1939 amendment to the death act created a new cause of action precluding the survival of any action. [Hawkins, supra at 439.]
It is true that Rhule relied on Justice Sharpe’s dissent in In re Olney Estate as if it were a majority opinion. However, it should be noted that Rhule was a unanimous opinion. Even if the Court incorrectly cited the Sharpe dissent as binding precedent, rather than persuasive authority, it was well within the Court’s power to adopt Justice Sharpe’s rationale, as it clearly did. Justice Sharpe and the Rhule Court were right.
ii
The majority relies to a large degree on MCL 600.2921; MSA 27A.2921, which provides:
All actions and claims survive death. Actions on claims for injuries which result in death shall not be prosecuted after the death of the injured person except pursuant to the next section. If an action is pending at the time of death the claims may be amended to bring it under the next section. A failure to so amend will amount to a waiver of the claim for additional damages resulting from death.
Essentially, the majority position boils down to the following syllogism: All actions and claims survive death; a death action is an action or claim; therefore a death action survives death and the saving provision is applicable.
*448I disagree with this analysis because it clouds the issue in this case. The Legislature’s clear purpose in amending the survival statute in 1948 was to do away with the laundry list of common-law actions which survived death. Therefore, under the statute, as it now reads, all actions survive death. However, very basic to this proposition is the fact that to survive death, the action must exist before death. Therefore, the time at which a death action accrues is determinative, and is quite clearly not a question dealt with in § 2921. As such, the relevance of the statute is peripheral at best.
However, a plain reading does support the conclusion that a death action and an action for the underlying injury are different and distinct. The second sentence requires that where an injury results in death, any action must be brought pursuant to the death statute. The third sentencé requires that an action brought before death be amended to conform to the death statute. The obvious implication of both these requirements is that the death changes the nature of the action. The claim may no longer be pursued as a common-law tort action, but must instead conform to the requirements of the death statute. The elements to be proved (specifically death), the named parties, and the recoverable damages are all different under the death act than they would have been had death not ensued. The key factor is whether death has in fact occurred. Thus, rather than conflict with my opinion, § 2921 supports the proposition that a wrongful death action is not the same action as one for the underlying wrongful conduct, and, therefore, the death action arises at death.
It could be argued that § 2921 prevents the potential unfairness of Hawkins whereby a lingering victim is barred from bringing a death action, even before death has occurred. Thus, a party who *449is injured, but lingers, may bring suit for the underlying injury and, if death results, may amend the action to conform to the requirements of the death statute.
Where death occurs while the action is still in suit, no unfairness will result, as the plaintiff may then amend the complaint. However, unfairness will result if death occurs after a judgment is rendered or settlement reached. In that instance, the death will go uncompensated, as the judgment or settlement would only represent a recovery for the underlying injury.
Thus, injured parties are put in a rather dubious position. In order to preserve a death action, a plaintiff will be required to bring suit for the underlying injury. The best that the plaintiff could hope for (in terms of compensation) is to be able to string the suit along until the plaintiff does in fact die. This is hardly a desirable result as a matter of policy, as well as in terms of judicial economy.
The better result is not to require a lingering victim to initiate suit to preserve a right to death damages, but, instead, to hold that death actions accrue at death. This view is followed by the vast majority of states and is supported by statutory analysis and policy rationales. Rather than undermine this result, § 2921 actually buttresses it.
CONCLUSION
I would overrule Hawkins and hold that a cause of action under the wrongful death statute accrues at death. As such, a wrongful death action does not survive death, but arises because of it. Therefore, I would hold that the saving provision does not apply, and would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Levin, J., concurred with Riley, C.J.

 While I agree with Justice Sharpe’s analysis of the nature of a wrongful death action, I do not subscribe to his application of that analysis in In re Olney, supra.