Letters Received to C.B. Lee, March 24, 1933

COLLINS & CORBIN COUNSELLORS AT LAW CLEMENT K. CORBIN ROBERT J. BAIN EDWARD A. MARKLEY CHARLES w. BROADHURST 1 EXCHANGE PLACE, HOWARD F. MC INTYRE JAMES B. EMORY JERSEY CITY, N. J. PATRICK F. MC DEVITT JAMES J. LANGAN JOHN F. LEONARD ADOLPH s. HUMMEL March 24, 1933. William, George and Andrew Potcher vs. United States Radium Corp. C. B. Lee, Esq., Pres. U. S. Radium Corp. 535 Pearl Street, New York City. MAR 27 1933 Dear Mr. Lee: Mr. Sydney Sher of 12 Park Avenue, Rutherford, New Jersey, conferred with me on the 22nd inst. in regard to the claim of the above three young men against your e omp any to recover damages for the death of their mother, Anna Potcher, as a result of radium poisoning. The father died some time ago and these three boys are the only next of kin. Two of them, George and Andrew are minors at the present time, while William is 22 years of age according to Mr. Sher. Mr. Sher's claim is that assuming that a cause of action exists, that the statute of limitations does not run against it until two years after the youngest boy becomes of age. He has no authority to sustain his position. Our Death Act provides that suit must be brought within twenty- four calendar months after the cause of action accrued. Under the law the cause of action accrues upon the death of the person. The content ion that the cause of action does not accrue until a minor becomes of age where the suit is brought for the death of his parent, has been in effect denied by the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Reading Co. V. Koons, 271 U. S. 58 which holds that in suits under the Federal Em- ployers Liability Act to recover damages for death caused by negligence, the cause of action for death accrues when the events have occurred which determine that the carrier is liable even though the particular person thr ough whose agency the liability is to be enforced has not been designated; in short, that the accrual of the right to bring the action is not deferred by delay in procuring the appointment of a personal representa- tive, however such delay occurs. I think the statute of limitations has long since run against this claim. Irrespective of that question, however, and for the many other reasons that we know exist, this claim should not be entertained. I so advised Mr. Sher. He stated that he would settle for $1500. which he thought was a