From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1937
193 S.E. 738 (N.C. 1937)

Opinion

(Filed 24 November, 1937.)

1. Municipal Corporations § 17 —

Judgment of nonsuit in action against municipality to recovery for negligence resulting in death of plaintiff's daughter sustained on authority of White v. Charlotte, 211 N.C. 186.

2. Abatement and Revival § 11 — Parent's right of action to recover for loss of services of child abates upon death of child.

A parent's right of action to recover for loss of services of his child, upon allegation that the child's death was caused by the negligence of defendant, abates upon the death of the child, the sole remedy being an action for wrongful death, C. S., 160, and the question of the father's right to share in the recovery being a matter between him and the child's administrator.

APPEAL by plaintiff from Hill, Special Judge, at 20 September Extra Term, 1937, of MECKLENBURG. Affirmed.

John Newitt for plaintiff, appellant.

J. M. Scarborough and B. M. Boyd for defendants, appellees.


This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, father of Sarah Elizabeth White, for damages for loss of services of said infant, whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligent conduct of the defendants.

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Sarah Elizabeth White, an infant, instituted an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of said infant, against these defendants, upon substantially the same allegations of negligence. The facts are fully set out in the former decision, White v. Charlotte, 211 N.C. 186. From judgment of nonsuit the plaintiff appealed.


The evidence in this case was substantially the same as in White v. Charlotte, 211 N.C. 186, except that one additional witness was offered, whose testimony tends to show contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. White v. Charlotte, supra, is controlling.

There is a further reason why the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. Actions for wrongful death are purely statutory and the right of action rests exclusively in the administrator. Speaking to the subject in Gurley v. Power Co., 172 N.C. 690, Brown, J., says: "An action for the recovery of wages of a minor . . . lies in favor of the parent; but if the child dies from the injury the action abates. The only action that lies in such case, in this State, is for wrongful death, as authorized by Revisal 59, and that embraces everything. In such action the value of the life before 21, as well as after 21 years of age, is recoverable. No other action lies than this." Killian v. R. R., 128 N.C. 262.

It is true that the father was entitled to the services of his daughter, if she had lived, till her majority, but when the death of the daughter ensued the cause of action abated. The question of the father's right to share in the recovery for the prospective wages up to 21 years would be a matter between him and the administrator. Gurley v. Power Co., supra; Killian v. R. R., supra; Insurance Co. v. Brame, 95 U.S. page 756.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

White v. Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1937
193 S.E. 738 (N.C. 1937)
Case details for

White v. Charlotte

Case Details

Full title:J. R. WHITE v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE AND CHARLOTTE PARK RECREATION…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1937

Citations

193 S.E. 738 (N.C. 1937)
193 S.E. 738

Citing Cases

White v. Comrs. of Johnston

If a minor child is injured by the wrongful act or omission of another, a cause of action arises under the…

Webb v. Eggleston

The right to maintain an action for damages for wrongful death did not exist at common law. It was created by…