Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona

The legal maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" means A personal right to action dies with person.

Image Credit: www.clatapult.com

This maxim was very first time used in a case in 1496 where an old woman died before paying damages. The old woman was liable for a case of defamation. It was the principal of early law that the death of either party to a personal duty takes away or remedy and destroys the duty. 

In England under the common law there was a general rule that on the death of any party in matter of tort it stands disposed off automatically. However in due course of time the rule was reversed by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 on the death of any person all causes of action vested in him shall survive for the benefit of his estate. Thus all causes of action in tort suit for defamation and the claim for damages for bereavement survive the deceased. 

Exceptions to the legal maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona: 

• Defamation 
• Attack or assault
• Personal damages 

Thus right of action arising tinder the court the contract act cannot be quashed on the death of any party. Wherein the person had illegally acquired the property belonging to the other person, even on death of that person who possessed property unlawfully, right of action can be initiated against such person through his legal representatives. 

It has been described by Viscount Simon as “not in fact the source from which a body of law has been deduced, but a confusing expression, framed in the solemnity of the Latin tongue, in which the effect of death upon certain personal torts was inaccurately generalised”  

The doctrine is embodied and not peculiar to common law system. The idea belongs to primary strata in universal law. In modern times it has been gradually limited by judicial decisions and is now being still further restricted by legislation. 

A maxim stating that actions of tort or contract are destroyed by the death of either the injured or the injuring party. Modern statutes mean that this is rarely the case. However, before the passing of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 acceptance of this notion meant that in actions in negligence it was better for a doctor to kill his patient outright than to injure him. This situation arose because it was originally believed that the primary function of tort was to punish and not to compensate for damage caused. The maxim still survives in the law of defamation (“you cannot defame the dead”).

In India under the Fatal Accident Act 1855 death caused on account of negligence, rashness and due to wrongful act the legal representatives of the deceased can sue. 

Even cases involving determination of liabilities of the parties arising as a result of breach of contractual duties, a personal right to action does not die with person. Their legal representatives or authorised attorney can file a suit for specific performance and claim damages. 

e.g. 1) If P commits battery on Q and either party dies the right of action which accrued to Q by the reason of the battery is taken away. 

e.g. 2) If P commits battery on Q or do other injury to him, any right of action which accrues to third person say wife a legal heir of Q, will not be affected by the death of Q so far as the application of the maxim is concerned. 

Case Laws:

1) In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, wherein due to negligence on the part of the petitioner's driver, a boy aged 14 years was crushed to death. Brothers of the deceased boy file suit claiming compensation. The motor accident claim tribunal passed award of compensation which was affirmed by the High Court and by the Apex Court. The Court held that contention of the compensation that right of personal action dies with the person is no more recognised rule of law. Hence, corporation is liable to pay compensation to the deceased brother. 

2) In Nurani Jamal And Others vs Naram Srinivasa Rao And Others [AIR 1996 AP 6] the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has applicable in respect of all personal wrongs but there is an exception where a tortfeasor is benefited by the wrong done and action would lie against the representatives of a wrongdoer. 

3) Baker vs. Bolton [KBD 8 Dec 1808] case arose : The defendants were the proprietors of a stage coach , on the top of which the plaintiff and his wife were travelling from Portsmouth to London. The coach was overturned and the plaintiff’s wife was so badly hurt that she died a month later. The plaintiff brought an action for negligence and sought to recover for the loss of service and consortium. It will be noted that the maxim actio personalis did not apply and there was nothing to show that the defendant’s conduct was felonious. Hence, the doctrine of merger was not applicable.

4) M. Veerappa vs Evelyn Sequeira & Ors: During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and his legal representatives, who are the respondents herein, filed a petition under order XXII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking their substitution in the suit for prosecuting the suit further. The appellant opposed the application and contended that as the suit was one for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, the suit abated on his death as per the maxim Actio Personalis cum moritur persona. The District Munsif upheld the objection and dismissed the suit as having abated but the High Court held otherwise and declared the legal representatives to be entitled to get impleaded and continue the suit.

5) In Girja Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury observed as under: "The maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' a personal action dies with the person has a limited application. It operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party, and in other actions where after the death of the party the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. An action for account is not an action for damages ex delicto, and does not fall within the enumerated classes. Nor is it such that the relief claimed being personal could not be enjoyed after death, or granting it would be nugatory."

Thanks for reading till the end. This blog is only for study purpose. Please share it with law students you know.

========

You can use this app for more knowledge.

=============