Schronce v. ConiglioSchronce v. Coniglio
Plaintiffs decedent Shelton Schronce was employed by Custom Transport, Inc. On 23 July 1994, decedent fell and injured his shoulder while loading a truck. Following his injury, he was taken to Lincoln County Hospital and was treated by defendant Dr. Gerald Coniglio. Plaintiff alleges that defendant negligently treated decedent, causing his injury to worsen and causing him to be totally disabled. In addition, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s negligence caused decedent to suffer additional pain, incur additional medical and hospital bills, and endure a longer period of recuperation.
On 14 December 1992, decedent died from causes unrelated to the alleged negligence of defendant. Plaintiff was appointed adminis-tratrix of decedent’s estate and brought this action against defendant,
On 28 September 1995, defendant filed his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the cause of action alleged by plaintiff did not survive the death of plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff assigns as error the trial court’s ruling that the cause of action does not survive decedent Shelton Schronce’s death. A review of the record reveals that the trial court relied upon
(a) Upon the death of any person, all demands whatsoever, and rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding, existing in favor of or against such person, except as provided in subsection (b) hereof, shall survive to and against the personal representative or collector of his estate.
(b) The following rights of action in favor of a decedent do not survive:
(1) Causes of action for libel and for slander, except slander of title;
(2) Causes of action for false imprisonment;
(3) Causes of action where the relief sought could not be enjoyed, or granting it would be nugatory after death.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court’s reliance on
At common law a person injured by the negligence of another had a right of action to recover consequential damages. But at common law such right of action did not survive the death of the injured person, that is, it died with the person; and if the injured person died as a result of the wrongful act of another, there was at common law no right of action for such death.
Hoke v. Greyhound Corp.,
Defendant and plaintiff cite several cases in support of their respective positions; however, after a careful review of the relevant cases, we find that this Court’s decision in McGowen v. Rental Tool Co.,
Reversed.