Two distinct causes of action may arise from one wrong. For example, our Supreme Court has recognized that a surgeon might be held liable to his patient on an alleged breach of his obligation to use proper skill and care, even after a cause of action based on negligence had been barred by the statute of limitations. Hickey vs. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716; Giambozi vs. Peters, 127 id. 380. While an action against a carrier for wrong resulting in injury to a passenger is usually brought in tort, the action may be in assumpsit for breach of the express or implied contract to carry safely. 13 C.J.S. Carriers § 757, p. 1421; 4 Am. Jur. Assumpsit §§ 2, 14, pp. 494, 503.
It seems, that had ante mortem damages been pleaded and urged, the court might not have sustained the demurrer as to the first and third counts. The history of the survival and death statutes is reviewed, the purpose and effect of those statutes stated, and the overruling of Porpora vs. New Haven ( 122 Conn. 80) and Giambozi vs. Peters (127 id. 380), which the court follows with reluctance, prophesied. MEMORANDUM FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 1942.