THE CONFLICT OF LAWS AND THE ENGLISH FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS
| Published date | 01 July 1961 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1961.tb02778.x |
| Date | 01 July 1961 |
THE
CONFLICT
OF
LAWS AND THE
ENGLISH FATAL ACCIDENTS
ACTS
ENGLISH
courts have not frequently been confronted with suits for
damages for wrongful death in which foreign elements are apparent.
Consequently, the textbooks have accorded very little attention to
the matter,‘ and
it
therefore seems that a short analysis of the
situation would not be out of place-especially since the recent
decision of Paul1
J.
in
Schneider
v.
Eisovitch
tends to emphasise
the problem.
Section
1
of the Fatal Accidents Act,
1846,
reads as follows:
“
Whensoever the death of
a
person shall be caused by
wrongful act, neglect,
or
default, and the act, neglect,
or
default
is
such as would (if death had not ensued) have entitled
the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages
in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who
would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable
to
an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the
person injured, and although the death shall haw been caused
under such circumstances as amount in law to felony.”
It
would appear that the following
“
permutations
”
are capable
of occurring
:
(a)
Situations where the wrongful act, neglect or default and the
In
Davidsson
v.
lIilZYs
a decision with which it is difficult to
quarrel,
a
collision occurred on the high seas between a British ship
and
a
Norwegian barque owing entirely to the negligence of those
in charge of the British vessel.
As
a result of the collision, a sail-
maker aboard the Norwegian ship was drowned. He was
a
Norwegian subject who had his home with his family in Norway.
His widow sued in England (there being no personal representative
of the deceased in England) on her own behalf and that of their six
children to recover compensation from the English owners of the
British ship for her husband’s death under the Fatal Accidents
Acts,
1846-1908.
Kennedy and Phillimore
JJ.
dismissed the con-
tention for the defendants that those Acts applied only to British
subjects and others, of ‘whatever nationality, who were actually
resultant death occur outside England
1
Cheshire,
Priuate International
Law
(5th ed., 1957),
and
Graveson,
The
(‘on@&
of
Laws
(4th ed., 1960),
are
all
but
silent
on
the topic. See Dioey,
Conflict
of
Laws
(7th
ed.,
l958),
pp.
954-959.
2
[1960]
1
All
E.R.
169, noted~as to the very interesting domestic
law
points in
the
rase by Dmorkin
(1960)
23
M.L.R.
317.
See,
however,
Gage
v.
King
rl9601
3
W.L.R.
460.
3
[1901]
2
E.B.
606.
467
To continue reading
Request your trial