Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1948-04-16

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text

750 chars
follow generally the English rule that a death can give rise to no action for damages, but allow the husband to recover for expenses of his wife’s burial. Numerous American cases criticize with more or less severity the English cases. The English cases have been reviewed at length, analyzed, and subjected to devastating criticism by Judge Dillon in Sullivan v. Union Pacific R. Co. (8 Cir.) 3 Dill. 334, 23 F. Cas. No. 13,599, p. 368. Similar criticism of them was made by Judge Deady in Holmes v. O. & C. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 5 F. 75. The English rule was also disapproved in other cases. Hansen v. Hayes, 175 Or. 358, 154 P. (2d) 202; Philby v. N. P. Ry. Co. 46 Wash. 173, 89 P. 468, 123 A. S. R. 926, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1193, 13 Ann. Cas. 742, supra.