Let’s say that A sues B in civil court for [insert reason here]. During the trial, A dies. Does the case just go on without her, with her estate set to recover any damages? If B dies, does the case continue with his estate on the hook to pay damages (if ordered to do so by the court)?
The case can go on. Example here, Jesse Ventura v. Chris Kyle (legal case, not wrestling match). Kyle died during the process but his widow and estate were allowed to be substituted as defendants. Ventura won initially, the decision was overturned, he sued again and then the parties settled.
I believe that if Party B dies during the trial then their estate is on the hook for damages, assuming there are any. As far as what happens if Party A dies, I think that’s decided on a case-by-case basis, no pun intended. The judge may allow the estate to continue the case assuming there is some relative who wants to take it over.
When media owner Robert Maxwell died during one of his many libel actions, the suite died with him, for now the plaintiff’s reputation ‘belongs to the verdict of historians’.
Also his lawyers had to join the line of ‘people who werent getting paid what they were owed’
Some causes of action don’t survive death (and varies by juristiction) but the vast majority of lawsuits can continue if the plaintiff or defendant dies. You have to amend the caption to indicate the real party is now the estate. Sometimes you have to set up a probate and get a personal representative appointed. So, it could cause delay, but in most cases the litigation can continue.
Remember, in 99.9% of cases, an insurance company is in the mix behind the defendant, even if the jury isn’t allowed to know that. In 30+ years of doing civil litigation, I’ve maybe had 3 or 4 cases that sought a defendant’s personal assets.
What would be an example of a cause of action that doesn’t survive death?
Defamation (I think) and in some places things like emotional distress of the guy who died. So, if you’re the estate of a plaintiff who died 3 weeks after an accident, you could recover economic loss, but not for the suffering for those three weeks. In other places, those claims remain.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I was once again reminded of the events surrounding my wife’s purchase of the house we now live in. The owner passed away two days before the closing. There was no will and she was the sole owner. I don’t know what the statutory basis was for whatever magic was performed, but the County Clerk of Court was able to execute enough paperwork to make the closing happen as scheduled. I believe the oldest daughter of the homeowner took her mother’s place at the closing.
On October 17, 2006, the conviction was overturned due to abatement ab initio, a legal doctrine which says the death of a defendant during an appeal results in a vacated judgment.[32][33] The government opposed Lay’s attorneys’ motions of appeal and the United States Department of Justice issued a statement saying it remained committed to pursuing all available legal remedies for victims of the fraud.
That was a criminal case. Wouldn’t most criminal cases end if the defendant dies?
Yes, because the accused has a constitutional right to make full answer and defence. Death cuts that off, so there can’t be a posthumous conviction.
Civil matters are different, because the constitutional guarantee for criminal cases doesn’t apply, and civil matters are generally economic in nature, with one party claiming damages (eg - contract, torts, property claims). That type of claim can continue, with the estate substituted, but there may be questions about the ability of the estate to carry on the action, since the primary witness is no longer available.
Civil actions that are personal in nature can lapse on death, depending on the law of the particular jurisdiction. Defamation suits normally lapse if the plaintiff dies, because the damage to reputation is personal to the plaintiff. It’s not an asset that transfers to the estate. But death of the defendant in a defamation suit wouldn’t end the suit, because the allegation is that the defendant harmed the plaintiff.
Divorce suits also lapse, because the Grim Reaper has already terminated the marriage. There may be ancillary property issues that would survive.
In some jurisdictions (well, at least one) the litigation can be continued with a Motion to Spread Death. Sounds grim, doesn’t it.
How times change. Oliver Cromwell (of English Civil War fame in the mid-17th century) was exhumed after his death and posthumously executed (kidjanot).
(Yes, I realize 17th century English law has little bearing on US law.)
I 100% believe you but I would think the estate could make a case that the damage in reputation harmed the estate. Maybe they could sell movie rights or book rights or property value or something but the defamation would harm those future sales. Just saying it seems like there could be some harm to the estate that could be articulated and should be addressed.