 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. Stoneberger8/28/2002
ed to workmen's compensation cases for help in determining what level of dependence would be sufficient for recovery. Id. at 458. The Tenth Circuit noted that " n Massachusetts, Georgia, and Washington, each having a death statute similar but not identical with that in New Mexico, it is well settled that partial or substantial dependence is enough." Id. at 459 (emphasis added). The court quoted from a New Mexico Supreme Court case interpreting "dependency" within the context of the Workmen's Compensation statute:
Dependency does not necessarily depend upon whether or not the claimants could support themselves without the earnings of the deceased or whether they could have so reduced their living expenses that they could have been supported independent of such earnings. To the contrary, it depends upon whether or not the deceased had actually contributed to their support and whether or not they relied upon such earnings in whole or in part for their livelihood. Id. (quoting Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co., 222 P. 903, 905 (1924)).
The Tenth Circuit acknowledged (as we do) that the Workmen's Compensation Act is to be liberally construed, whereas wrongful death statutes are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. Id. at 459. Where "dependence" was not defined in the New Mexico wrongful death statute, however, the Tenth Circuit concluded that partial, substantial dependence of a sister and substantial contributions to her support would suffice. Id. Although her husband was legally obligated to support the decedent's sister, the court held that the sister's dependence on her husband did not defeat her right to recover if she was also dependent on her brother. Id. at 460.
In Estes v. Schulte, 264 P. 990, 991 (Wash. 1928), a woman, sixty- two years of age, with no means of support and unable to cook or do heavy housework, was found to be substantially dependent on her deceased sister, who gave her between $20 - $25 per month.
"The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." Degren v. State, 352 Md. 400, 417 (1999). If, as here, the words "are susceptible to more than one meaning, it is necessary to consider their meaning and effect `in light of the setting, the objectives and purpose of the enactment.'" Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass'n. v. Baltimore County, 347 Md. 125, 137 (1997) (citing Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 308 Md. 69, 75 (1986)). "In such circumstances, the court, in seeking to ascertain legislative intent, may consider the consequences resulting from one meaning rather than another, and adopt that construction which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result, or one which is inconsistent with common sense." Tucker, 308 Md. at 75. "Moreover, in deciding what a term's ordinary and natural meaning is, [a court] may, and often [does] consult the dictionary." State Dep't. of Assessments & Taxation v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n., 348 Md. 2, 14 (1997).
In 1997, the General Assembly amended Maryland's Wrongful Death Statute by its enactment of House Bill 770. In a wrongful death action without a beneficiary or claimant who is a spouse, parent, or child of the deceased, this bill lowered from "wholly" to "substantially" the degree to which a person related to the deceased by blood or marriage must have been dependent to be entitled to damages. This evidenced a clear intent to make it easier for secondary beneficiaries to recover damages in a wrongful death action.
The only relevant legislative history that we have been able to find regarding House Bill 770 consists of a letter from the Stephanie Roper Committee containing
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|