 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sindelar v. Leguia5/17/2000
nefit from his untimely death.
"It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings." Union Village Development Associates v. Town of North Smithfield Zoning Board of Review, 738 A.2d 1084, 1086 (R.I. 1999) (quoting Providence & Worcester Railroad Co. v. Pine, 729 A.2d 202, 208 (R.I. 1999)). "Once having done that, our 'work of judicial interpretation is at an end.' " Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873, 877 (R.I. 1996) (quoting DeAngelis v. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, 656 A.2d 967, 969 (R.I. 1995)). Finally, we note that where, as here, a statute operates in the derogation of the common law, we are charged with a strict interpretation of the General Assembly's language. Kelly, 678 A.2d at 876.
We have held that " he wrongful death act, G.L. 1956 chapter 7 of title 10, confers a right of action on certain enumerated individuals to recover damages for the death of a family member." Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676, 680 (R.I. 1999) (citing Presley v. Newport Hospital, 117 R.I. 177, 180, 365 A.2d 748, 749-50 (1976)). Section 10-7-2 sets out those entitled to recover under the Act:
"Every action under this chapter, other than one brought under § 10-7-1.2, shall be brought by and in the name of the executor or administrator of the deceased person, whether appointed or qualified within or without the state, and of the amount recovered in every action under this chapter one-half (1/2) shall go to the husband or widow, and one-half (1/2) shall go to the children of the deceased, and if there are no children, the whole shall go to the husband or widow, and, if there is no husband or widow, to the next of kin, in the proportion provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate * * *."
The plain language of the statute indicates that if the decedent dies childless, then all of the amount recovered "shall" go to the decedent's spouse, and if there exists no spouse nor children, then the entire amount recovered "shall" be distributed to the next of kin as if the decedent died intestate. In the instant case, Gregor died leaving no wife and no children, and therefore under Rhode Island intestacy law, the amount recovered in the wrongful death action is to be shared equally by his parents, as his heirs at law.
While § 10-7-2 of the Act recognizes an exception to recovery for those parents who have failed to pay child support, and we have recognized the so-called "cause of death" exception to recovery, see Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Curley, 585 A.2d 640 (R.I. 1991), we conclude there simply is no reason to promulgate and thus to carve, by naked judicial fiat, a further exception into the Act that purports to test the strength of parental bonds between a parent and a decedent child before awarding recovery to a parent under the Act.
In reaching this conclusion, we find controlling the plain language of the statute itself. We, as did the hearing justice, glean no language whatsoever indicating the need for a judicial inquiry to determine the worthiness of the relationship between a decedent and an enumerated taker under § 10-7-2.
Sindelar, however, would have us turn the plain language of § 10-7-2 and § 10-7-1.1 on its head by accepting her argument that the General Assembly intended pecuniary damages to encompass only those takers under the Act who reasonably expected a benefit from the continuing life of the decedent.
We observe that the term "pecuniary damage" is statutorily determined in the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|