Ask the Scholar

Page 102 of 136
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 102

OCR

-5- 6/ 398 US 375, 407 (1970) (emphasis supplied). The United States Supreme Court has expressly held, with respect to a FELA action, that "if the employee leaves no survivors in any of the classes of beneficiaries alternatively designated, it necessarily follows that the personal representative cannot maintain any action to recover damages for the death, since there is no beneficiary in whose behalf such an action can be brought". Lindgren vs United States, 281 US 38, 41 (1930) (emphasis supplied). In the very recent case of In the Matter of Cambria Steamship Co., su- pra, fn. 6, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in construing survivor- ship under federal common law, denied any right of recovery to a non-dependent collateral kin of the decedent and also denied the right of recovery for losses to the estate. Being the most recent expression of any Circuit Court, and the reason- ing of that Court being so cogent to the question presently before this Court, the following excerpts, although somewhat lengthy, are quoted from the opinion: "None of the federal wrongful death statutes premises recovery on losses sustained by the estate, but each provides a specified list of beneficiaries for whose benefit the ac- tion is to be brought. The Supreme Court itself recognized, in reliance upon Speiser, supra, and other sources, that 44 states and territories measure damages by losses sustained by beneficiaries. "While a few of those jurisdictions measuring damages by loss to beneficiaries permit an action on behalf of the es- tate where the decedent is not survived by any statutory ben- eficiaries, and a few other as noted earlier, measure all losses by loss to the estate, the majority do not provide for this type of recovery. Thus, while appellant is not without same authority for the position urged, we hold the better rule to be that the action exists primarily for the benefit of individual beneficiaries, and general losses to the estate are not recoverable. Moragne and Sea-Land Services vs Gaudet speak consistently in terms of dependents: 'In overruling The Harrisburg, Moragne ended these anomalies by the creation of a uniform federal 6/ Those beneficiaries are usually the surviving spouse, children, parents, and other dependent next of kin. See Appendix A annexed hereto. Similarly, al- most all of the states provide for survival of actions only in favor of such designated dependent spouse or next of kin. In the Matter of Cambria Steamship Co., No. 73-1349-1350, F2d (CA 6-oct. 30, 1974) (Slip Opinion attached hereto as Appendix B). NW 12640 DocIh:59167994 Page 121

Page data

Page
102
Source index
0
Type
photo
Media ID
229820085bb7c030
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
7564844
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data
{
    "id": "7564844",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Garrison-Miscellanous material] Folder 3 of 17",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844",
    "collections": [
        "John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection",
        "Papers of Jim Garrison"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "imageCount": 136,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity
{
    "localId": "7564844",
    "label": "[Garrison-Miscellanous material] Folder 3 of 17",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844"
}
Document source metadata
{
    "id": "7564844",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Garrison-Miscellanous material] Folder 3 of 17",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844",
    "collections": [
        "John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection",
        "Papers of Jim Garrison"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0077.jpg",
    "imageCount": 136,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564844",
    "naId": 7564844,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
    "seq": 102,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/44/5648/7564844/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-073/jfk-garrison-073-0121.jpg",
    "mediaId": "229820085bb7c030",
    "ocrText": "-5-\n6/\n398 US 375, 407 (1970) (emphasis supplied).\nThe United States Supreme Court has expressly held, with respect to a\nFELA action, that \"if the employee leaves no survivors in any of the classes of\nbeneficiaries alternatively designated, it necessarily follows that the personal\nrepresentative cannot maintain any action to recover damages for the death,\nsince there is no beneficiary in whose behalf such an action can be brought\".\nLindgren vs United States, 281 US 38, 41 (1930) (emphasis supplied).\nIn the very recent case of In the Matter of Cambria Steamship Co., su-\npra, fn. 6, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in construing survivor-\nship under federal common law, denied any right of recovery to a non-dependent\ncollateral kin of the decedent and also denied the right of recovery for losses\nto the estate.\nBeing the most recent expression of any Circuit Court, and the reason-\ning of that Court being so cogent to the question presently before this Court,\nthe following excerpts, although somewhat lengthy, are quoted from the opinion:\n\"None of the federal wrongful death statutes premises\nrecovery on losses sustained by the estate, but each provides\na specified list of beneficiaries for whose benefit the ac-\ntion is to be brought. The Supreme Court itself recognized,\nin reliance upon Speiser, supra, and other sources, that 44\nstates and territories measure damages by losses sustained\nby beneficiaries.\n\"While a few of those jurisdictions measuring damages by\nloss to beneficiaries permit an action on behalf of the es-\ntate where the decedent is not survived by any statutory ben-\neficiaries, and a few other as noted earlier, measure all\nlosses by loss to the estate, the majority do not provide for\nthis type of recovery. Thus, while appellant is not without\nsame authority for the position urged, we hold the better\nrule to be that the action exists primarily for the benefit\nof individual beneficiaries, and general losses to the estate\nare not recoverable. Moragne and Sea-Land Services vs Gaudet\nspeak consistently in terms of dependents:\n'In overruling The Harrisburg, Moragne ended these\nanomalies by the creation of a uniform federal\n6/\nThose beneficiaries are usually the surviving spouse, children, parents, and\nother dependent next of kin. See Appendix A annexed hereto. Similarly, al-\nmost all of the states provide for survival of actions only in favor of such\ndesignated dependent spouse or next of kin. In the Matter of Cambria Steamship\nCo., No. 73-1349-1350,\nF2d\n(CA 6-oct. 30, 1974) (Slip Opinion attached\nhereto as Appendix B).\nNW 12640 DocIh:59167994 Page 121"
}