45 U.S.C. § 59
Survival of right of action of person injured
Any right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, but in such cases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1931–2025 · leading case: Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978).
Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978). “V), and Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 59 , limit survival to specific named relatives or dependents (albeit a larger class of survivors than the Louisiana statute allows) is gratuitous.”
Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990). “See 45 U. S. C. § 59 ; Gillespie, supra, at 157 .”
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964). “There is, of course, no doubt that the Jones Act through § 9 of the FELA, 45 U. S. C. § 59 (1958 ed.), [13] provides for survival after the death of the seaman of "[a]ny right of action given by this chapter," i.”
Clay L. Shaw v. Jim Garrison, 545 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1977). “2d 471 ; and it has been held under the FELA that the death of a deceased railroad worker’s father did not cause the father’s survival action for his son’s injuries under 45 U.S.C. § 59 to abate, even though the father was the only available person for whose benefit a survival…”
Zatuchni v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 516 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “45 U.S.C. § 59 (emphasis added). [3] The vast majority of state statutes also utilize such language.”
Tadlock v. Tadlock, 660 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). “She contends the trial court erred by (1) determining that a showing of dependence is not required for recovery under 45 USC § 59 , (2) finding that a prenuptial agreement can bar recovery under 45 USC § 59 , (3) granting Allen Tad-lock’s motion for partial summary judgment, and…”
Ivy v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co., 510 So. 2d 520 (Miss. 1987). “HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the court: Rita Ivy appeals from the decision of the circuit court of Warren County dismissing her claim on behalf of her child Andrea Denise Allen to establish Nathaniel Gibbs as Andrea's natural father so as to entitle Andrea to death benefits…”
Boulder Cnty. Commissioners v. Suncor Energy, 25 F.4th 1238 (10th Cir. 2022). “354, 379 (1959), superseded on other grounds by statute, The Jones Act, 45 U.S.C. § 59 , as recognized in Miles v.”
Figueroa Ex Rel. Est. of Figueroa v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 715 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “, Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 59 (expressly providing for survival of an action); 28 U.”
Greene v. CSX Transp., Inc., 843 So. 2d 157 (Ala. 2002). “This case presents the question whether the "latent-illness-discovery rule" applies to actions brought by the personal representatives of deceased railroad employees, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 59 , a part of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, for personal injuries allegedly…”
Deyarmin v. Consol. Rail Corp., 931 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). “by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of…”
Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 2d 772 (S.D. Tex. 2013). “This was not, however, because the saving to suitors clause prohibited removal, as it “does no more than preserve the right of maritime suitors to pursue nonmaritime remedies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.