Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesstatuteappealtrialsummary judgmentstatute of limitations
plaintiffdamagesstatuteappealtrialsummary judgmentrespondent

Related Cases

Beneke v. Smith, Slip Copy, 2015 WL 2137134 (Table)
View Case »
Caris v. Mele, 134 A.D.2d 475, 521 N.Y.S.2d 260
View Case »
Vollaro v. Lispi, 224 Cal.App.4th 93, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 323, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2113, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2366
View Case »
I.H. ex rel. Litz v. County of Lehigh, 610 F.3d 797
View Case »
Morey v. Fitzgerald, 56 Vt. 487, 1884 WL 6572, 48 Am.Rep. 811
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 841 S.W.2d 343, 61 USLW 2265, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,345

Facts

Donnon Russell was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1981 due to silica exposure from his work as a sandblaster and painter. He filed a lawsuit in 1982 against 14 defendants for damages related to his condition. Russell died in 1988 before the case went to trial, and shortly thereafter, his widow and children filed an amended petition claiming damages on behalf of his estate and for his death, adding more defendants to the case. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by limitations.

In 1981, Donnon Russell was diagnosed as suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease caused by exposure to silica during his employment for many years as a sandblaster and painter. In 1982, Russell filed suit to recover damages for his injuries. In 1988, before the case could come to trial, Russell died.

Issue

If an individual's action for personal injuries would have been barred by limitations at the time of his death, are actions based upon the same wrongful conduct, brought by his heirs or estate under the Survival Statute and by his beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Statute, also barred by limitations?

If an individual's action for personal injuries would have been barred by limitations at the time of his death, are actions based upon the same wrongful conduct, brought by his heirs, legal representatives or estate under the Survival Statute, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 71.021, and by his beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Statute, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §§ 71.001 –.011, also barred by limitations?

Rule

If a decedent's action would have been barred by limitations had it been asserted immediately prior to his death, a survival action based upon the same alleged wrong is likewise barred. Wrongful death actions are derivative of the decedent's rights and are subject to the same defenses.

It follows from these general principles that if a decedent's action would have been barred by limitations had it been asserted immediately prior to his death, a survival action based upon the same alleged wrong is likewise barred.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that since Russell's claims would have been barred by limitations at the time of his death, the survival and wrongful death actions brought by his family were also barred. The court emphasized that the derivative nature of these actions means that the heirs cannot assert claims that the decedent could not have maintained himself due to limitations.

Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs' survival action against respondents is likewise barred by limitations.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the plaintiffs' survival and wrongful death actions were barred by limitations.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, as the decedent's own claims would have been at the time of his death.

Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs' claims against them are barred by limitations.

You must be