Ms. Bagley, the personal representative of the husband’s estate (plaintiff), must prove a wrongful death claim against Ms. Bagley, the driver (defendant).
To succeed, plaintiff simply has to show that:
[ul]
[li]A human being died[/li][li]That death was caused by defendant’s negligence, or with intent to cause harm[/li][li]There are surviving family members who are suffering monetary injury as a result of the death[/li][/ul]
There are plenty of ways to prove each element of the tort. The second, the negligence element, is presumably the one you feel is an uphill climb, but it was a single-car accident that was investigated by police. The police report certainly should show enough evidence to allow the finder of fact to conclude that the driver was at fault.
Except maybe she wasn’t negligent.Maybe there was no negligence involved at all - not every accident involves negligence. And then she’s got a reason to throw the case- because if no one is negligent, there’s no wrongful death.
But that represents a windfall for the insurance company. The husband paid the premiums to insure against the loss. The loss has happened (subject to proof of negligence, of course). Why should the insurance company be freed of their contractual liability? If the fellow had survived the accident, received the money, and then died, leaving it to his wife, would the insurance company be able to re-claim it?
One of the reasons people get insurance is to ensure that their spouses and dependents have financial security in case the insured dies suddenly. Why does public policy get to upset the deceased husband’s plans to protect his loved ones financially after his death?
Can “public policy” void an insurance contract in this way? What about the constitutional prohibition on impairing the obligations of a contract?
I suggest she wear three different hats, changing them as her role changes, to help the jury keep track of wtf is going on. If she can do accents that might help as well.
If she proves herself guily of negligence in killing her husband, then she may become subject to the “slayer rule” - depending on whether the negligence constituted voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or some lesser offense.
Mr. and Mrs. Bagler purchased liability insurance which protects their personal assets from seizure by third parties from their own negligence while operating a car. (They likely purchased other optional insurance, but this is the relevant one).
As the concept of spousal immunity has been abolished, I agree that Mr. Bagler could sue Mrs. Bagler in tort to recover for medical bills, pain and suffering, loss and enjoyment of life, and all other ordinary tort damages. Mrs. Bagler was an insured driver and can be liable to Mr. Bagler, even though they are named parties on the same contract. I have no problem with that.
But if we take the next step and say that Mr. Bagler (his estate) is entitled to damages for wrongful death and his family for loss of consortium and the like, we are getting back into the reasons why the concept of spousal immunity was part of the common law in the first place. Most suits between spouses are shams. As marriage is, among other things, a shared economic arrangement, transferring money between spouses is like moving money from the right pocket to the left.
Adding an insurance company to the mix represents a windfall to the spousal unit for a member’s own negligence. However, I still have no problem with the concept UNTIL a situation like this arises where one member of the marriage is dead and it becomes, for all rational purposes, a lawsuit against oneself. I don’t believe it is a windfall for the insurance company simply because this wasn’t a part of the contract in contemplation of the parties when it was signed.