Legal Opinion

Lucier v. Hittleman

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 12, 1939PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Maltbie, C. J.,

In this action the plaintiff claimed to recover as damages wages lost to him by reason of the death of his minor son, alleged to have been killed by the negligence and recklessness of the defendants in operating an automobile which ran into him. A demurrer to the complaint based upon the ground that it stated no cause of action was sustained and from the judgment entered upon the plaintiff’s failure to plead over he has appealed.

We have recognized it as a rule of the common law generally applicable that no action lies for damages resulting from the death of a human being.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. The HarrisburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Insurance Co. v. BrameSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
  4. Mayhew v. BurnsIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Tullgren v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  2. Ecker v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  3. Foran v. CarangeloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
  4. Ladd v. Douglas Trucking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  5. Wilson v. Midway Games, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2002

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API