*1 Administrаtrix, JONES, Es- Norma Lee Deceased, Pledger, tate of Zelma Mae Appellant, Administrator, PLEDGER, Sr.,
Anderson Deceased, Pledger, Estate of John Appellee. United States District оf Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. Rehearing En Banc Petition May Denied Washing- Parker, Barrington Mr. D. George C.,
ton, A. Mr. D. with whom C., Parker, Washington, on the was D. brief, appellant. Washington, D. Shuman, Mr. Jerome Roundtree, Dovey
C., J. with whom Mrs. brief, Washington, C., D. was appellee. Judge, Before Chief Bazelon, Judge, and Senior Circuit
Pbettyman, Judge. Fahy, Circuit FAHY, Judge: Circuit of the estate
The administratrix
Pledger
the administra-
Zеlma Mae
sued
Pledger. John
of John
of the Estate
tor
Pledger
Mae
of Zelma
Pledger.
complaint
intentionally
shot his
husband
flicting injuries
died,
from which she
day
he took
that thereaftеr
life. The husband and
his own
of lim-
separated
and there was decree
divorce,
bonds of
ited
but the
completely. had not been severed
kin, it is
next of
wife’s
heir
alleged,
son
guаrdian.
plaintiff
for whom
alleged,
dependent
minor, it is
*2
upon
corporated
part
in
mother for
and
his
in our
as
Code
Section 30-
custody.
is to
Thompson,
in her
The suit
U.S.
damages
1180;
to bе
due
recover
S.Ct.
54 L.Ed.
Mount
minor,
joy Mountjoy,
D.C.App.,
and
under the
206 A.2d
16-1201,
Act,
Steele,
ful Death
set
F.Supp.
D.C.Code
and see
§
Steele v.
(D.D.C.).
pertinent part.
important
in
respects
forth
The
in
infra
which this
Act eliminated
wife’s disa
The defendant
answered
administrator
bility
go
far,
did not
so
the Court held
summary judgment, which
and moved for
Thompson,
in
her to
enable
sue her
granted
“a wife
that
husbаnd for a tort committed
him
may
maintain
upon
explained:
The Court
against
injuries
her husband for
which
during
and,
occurred
coverture”
there-
Apart
from the consideration
fore,
аfter her death
can be
there
perpetration
such
of
atrocious
under
wrongs
adequate grounds
affords
Wrongful
she
Death Act because had
relief under the
of
statutes
and
divorce
solely
husband, by
of
lived
reason
alimony,
this
construction
[which
immunity,
interspousal
the doctrine of
would,
immunity]
would discard the
could not
in
wife.
be sued
his
time, open
at the
doоrs
thought
court
this
followed
The
courts to
all
of
accusations of
sorts
from the
terms
spouse against
other,
bring
and
in-
agree.
pro-
Act. We do
The Act
public
complaints
аssault,
notice
vides,
pertinent part:
in
slander,
libel,
alleged injuries
and
and
* * *
property
Whenever
the death
other,
or
the one
person
against
shall
be
or wife
* *
*
*
* *
any person
act
exer-
husband. Whether
* *
*
would,
jurisdiction
and the
such as
pro-
act
cise of such
would be
ensued,
public
if death
had
have entitled
motive
welfare and do-
*
* *
party injured,
main-
mestic
is at least a debatable
damages,
question.
tain an
possible
action and recover
of such
evils
*
* *
person
legislation might
have
well make the law-
making power
been liable if death
not ensued
hesitate
to enact
it.
shall be liable to an action for
But
these and kindred considerations
* * *
for such
and
dam-
legislative,
such
are аddressed to the
not the
judicial,
government.
shall be assessed with reference
branch of the
injury resulting
present,
act
interpretation
to the
* * *
such
cases
like
spouse
оnly
kin
to the
and next of
law
function
person
*.
courts.
ed.).
(1961
617-618,
D.C.Code
16-1201
§
ly upon domestic tran- United States Court of prohibition District quility Columbia Circuit. is fostered her hus- a wifе of actions Argued Dee. 1965. An based band. preservation can of marital Rehearing Petitions for En Banc and for case, pertinence Rehearing before the Division tеrminated, marriage has here Denied June dead, and are both husband and wife *4 the benefit action is a third Davis, supra, 410 Ill.
Wel4chv. N.E.2d at 549. action is
We conclude not barred immunity. the doctrine spirit This accords with the furthers Death Act and giving purposе. its “The statute dam resulting of death on account remedial, act of another liberally construed.” must be Co., App. Terminal Calvert v. Taxicab position has the D.C. 121. Our support this area commentators Harper James, & Torts
the law. (1956); Prosser, at 933 Torts § (3d 1964); Annot., A.L.R.2d ed. proceed- Reversed and remanded ings opinion. not inconsistent with this Judge
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit (concurring result): heartily support
I im- munity torts, but, respect doctrine in couple where the had a limited decree divorce and the tort murder coupled the wife with his suicide, own the doctrine has no factual rest, susbtance which to see I no reason to its effectiveness to Especially fiction. is this so in an action brought on behalf of minor child of the marriage against parent the estate destroyed his sole se- curity.