Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Messrs. Wm. F. Geenty and Thomas R. Fitz Simmons, both of New Haven, Conn., for petitioner. [283 U.S. 53, 54] Mr. Edward R. Brumley, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit under the Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA 51-59) for negligently causing the death of Edward L. Flynn, brought on May 15, 1929, by Flynn's executor for the benefit of Flynn's dependent widow and children. It is alleged that the injury was suffered on December 4, 1923, and that it caused Flynn's death on September 1, 1928.
[283 U.S. 53, 56]
The defendant, respondent here, demurred to the declaration on the ground that more than two years having elapsed since the date when Flynn's cause of action accrued his right to sue was barred, and that therefore the suit could not be maintained. Act of April 22, 1908, c. 149, 1, 6, 35 Stat. 65, 66; Act of April 5, 1910, c. 143, 1, 36 Stat. 291; Code, tit. 45, 51, 56 (45 USCA 51, 56). The demurrer and judgment for the defendant were sustained by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. 111 Conn. 196, 149 A. 682. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
The Act of 1908 gives a right of action to the employee or, in case of his death, to his personal representative for the benefit of the widow and children and provides that no action shall be maintained 'unless commenced within two years from the day the cause of action accrued.' Section 6 (45 USCA 56). Obviously Flynn's right of action was barred, but it is argued that the right on behalf of the widow and children is distinct; that their cause of action could not arise until Flynn's death, and that therefore the two years did not begin to run until September 1, 1928. But the argument ome too late. It is established that the present right, although not strictly representative, is derivative and dependent upon the continuance of a right in the injured employee at the time of his death. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Vreeland,
Judgment affirmed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 283 U.S. 53
No. 235
Argued: March 12, 1931
Decided: March 23, 1931
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)