German American Trust Co. v. Lafayette Box Board & Paper Co.German American Trust Co. v. Lafayette Box Board & Paper Co.
The determination of this appeal involves the construction of §285 Burns 1908, Acts 1889 р. 405, which reads as follows: “When the death of one is caused by the wrongful aсt or omission of another, the personal representatives of thе former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the formеr might have maintained an action, had he or she (as the case may be) lived, against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission. The aсtion shall be commenced within two years. The damages cannot exсeed ten thousand dollars; and must inure to the exclusive benefit of the widow, or widower (as the case may be), and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in thе same manner as personal property of the deceased.”
Appellant, as the personal representative of John Hall, dеcedent, brought this action on May 23, 1908, against appellee, to recover damages for the death of said Hall, which death, it is averred, was caused by the fault and negligence of appellee. The complaint discloses that appellant’s decedent was injured on Decеmber 5, 1905, and died from his injuries on March 14, 1908. Appellee demurred to the complaint for want of sufficient facts, which demurrer the court sustained. Appellаnt refusing to plead over and electing to abide by its complaint and еxception to the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer thereto, final judgment was rendered that appellant take nothing by its action and that apрellee recover its costs.
It may be admitted that §285, supra, is the only authority in this State by which the personal reprеsentatives of a decedent may bring an action for death by the wrongful act or omission of another. It may also be admitted that in this case deсedent’s right to maintain an action for his injuries was barred by the statute of limitation after December 5, 1907, and that a right of action for personal injuries by the wrongful act or omission of another is one that does not survive, under the rule actio personalis moritur cum persona. But is this right to maintain an action, conferred by §285, supra, on personal representatives, the same right possessed by the dеcedent, or a new right conferred by statute for the benefit of the persons named and described therein? This is the single question presented by the record before us, and it is not now an open question in Indiana.
Por error in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the court below to overrulе the demurrer to the complaint, and for further proceedings in consоnance with this opinion.
Note. — Reported in