92 Wash. 574 | Wash. | 1916
On November 28, 1909, A. C. Brodie, while a passenger on a street car of the Washington Water Power Company, was injured as the result of a collision occurring between the car upon which he was riding and another car of
The statutes of this state relating to actions for death by wrongful or negligent act provide for two causes of action. By § 194 of the Code (Rem. 1915 Code), it is provided:
“No action for a personal injury to any person occasioning his death shall abate, nor shall such right of action determine, by reason of such death, if he have a wife or child living, . . . but such action may be prosecuted, or commenced and prosecuted, in favor of such wife or in favor of the wife and children, . . .”
By § 183 it is provided:
“When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs or representatives may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death. ... In every such action the jury may give such damages, as under all circumstances of the case may to them seem just.”
But notwithstanding the seeming separate nature of the two causes of action, the courts hold with substantial unanimity that a release and satisfaction by the person injured of his right of action for the injury bars the right in the beneficiaries to maintain an action for his death occasioned by the injury. Thus Tiffany, in his work, Death by Wrongful Act (2d ed.), § 124, states the prevailing rule as follows:
“If the deceased, in his lifetime, has done anything that would operate as a bar to recovery by him of damages for the personal injury, this will operate equally as a bar in an action by his personal representatives for his death. Thus, a release by the party injured of his right of action, or a recovery of damages by him for the injury, is a complete defense in the statutory action.”
The cases, however, are not unanimous. The contrary view has been maintained with great force, and seemingly with much logic, especially under statutes like our own which create two separate causes of action.
But we need not pursue the inquiry. The arguments for and against the proposition, with a collation of the authori
It is the opinion of the majority of this court that the better reason is with the cases holding with the affirmative. This view requires an affirmance of the judgment of the court below, and it is so ordered.