12 Okla. Stat. § 1053

Section 1053 creates an independent wrongful-death action that a decedent’s prior workers’ compensation recovery for injuries does not preclude.

Weatherman v. Victor Gasoline Co. · filed 1942-05-12

As this court has previously pointed out, section 1053, supra, does not by virtue of the above-quoted clause therein inserted or any other provisions of the section operate as a continuance of any right of action which the deceased had prior to his death, but, on the contrary, provides a new and independent cause of action. ... Upon the foregoing considerations we conclude, and hold, that the fact that compensation for injuries had been received by the deceased during his lifetime under the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not preclude recovery under the first cause of action.

Section 1053 allows a wrongful death action only if the decedent retained a right to sue at death; a full settlement and release of the injury claim bars a later action based on the same act, absent fraud or mistake.

Haws v. Luethje · filed 1972-11-21

The right to maintain a cause of action under the wrongful death statute is derivative, and is conditioned upon the continuance of the right in decedent at the time of his death. Recovery of a judgment for damages due to the injury, or by settlement with the wrongdoer by which the injured party fully releases his cause of action, in the absence of fraud or mistake, will preclude a recovery by his personal representative for damages based upon the same wrongful or negligent act.

Section 1053 governs the method of distributing a wrongful death recovery among next of kin; each person's share depends on pecuniary loss, not inheritance shares.

Hurley v. Hurley · filed 1942-06-02

Section 1053 does not, as contended by Hurley, fix the proportion of the recovery to which each of the next of kin is entitled, but provides the method of ascertaining such proportion and distributing it when ascertained. It provides that the recovery shall be distributed “in the same manner” as personal property of the deceased.

Section 1053 makes a deceased person's next of kin the real party in interest in a wrongful-death action.

Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Jamison · filed 1950-08-01

In the instant case the mother was the real party in interest, she being the next of kin of the deceased. 12 O. S. 1941 §1053.

Section 1053 allows a surviving spouse or child to recover for wrongful death only if that person suffered a pecuniary loss from the death.

Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. Fuller · filed 1952-05-20

Therefore, in the instant case, if the death of the employee had occurred prior to the 1950 constitutional amendment, an action for wrongful death could have been prosecuted under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1941 § 1053 for the benefit of "the surviving spouse and children." These persons, although having a cause of action, would not have a right of action unless they suffered a pecuniary loss by reason of the death; in other words, were dependents.

Section 1053’s beneficiary order governs workers’ compensation death awards: a surviving widow without children takes ahead of the decedent’s parents.

Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Mullen · filed 1952-05-20

The amount of the award was proper but the distribution of the entire amount of $13,500 should have been ordered made to Mary M. Mullen, the widow of said Roy C. Mullen, deceased, she being the only person entitled, under the provisions of sections 1 and 4 of House Bill No. 312 of 1951 and of 12 O. S. 1941 §1053, to a beneficial interest therein.

Section 1053 makes a death recovery benefit the surviving spouse and children or next of kin, with each beneficiary’s share measured by individual pecuniary loss.

Willis v. Capitol Well Servicing Company · filed 1955-05-17

Founded upon that proven rule of law, we pointed out in the Fuller case that, in cases of accidental death of employees covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Law, the recovery was fixed at $13,500.00, but that 12 O.S.1951 §§ 1053 and 1054, were also applicable in that said recovery “must inure to the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and children, if any, or next of kin.” The beneficial interest of each, therein, is measured by the pecuniary loss each sustains as a result of the death.

Section 1053 allows next of kin to recover wrongful death damages only if the deceased left no surviving spouse or dependent children.

Flanigan v. Lincoln Construction Company · filed 1955-10-18

Since under the above authorities the only persons entitled to recover death benefit under the Death Benefit Provision of the Law are the same as those entitled to recover damages under 12 O.S.1951 § 1053, Effie E. Flanigan, surviving wife of deceased, is the only person entitled to recover death benefit herein since next of kin may only recover damages under the statute in the event deceased left no surviving spouse or dependent children.

Section 1053 limits wrongful-death damages to the benefit of a surviving spouse, children, or next of kin; a petition must allege a beneficiary’s pecuniary loss to state a claim.

Herndon v. Dolton-Barnard Hardware Company · filed 1955-11-15

Said section 1053 provides that damages recoverable in an action for wrongful death must inure to the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, and children, if any, or next of kin of the deceased. ... The plaintiff’s petition .herein does not state the existence of, and a pecuniary loss to, a surviving spouse or children or next, of kin of the decedent, and accordingly does not state a right to a recovery for death or a cause of action for death.

Section 1053 treats a person as next of kin only if that person is entitled to share in the decedent’s personal property.

Silva v. Gulf Oil Corporation · filed 1958-01-14

Under the evidence in this case Alice Whewell, aunt of deceased, is not entitled to share in the distribution of the personal property of deceased and is therefore not next of kin or heir at law of deceased and cannot recover compensation under the death benefit provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Section 1053 requires a final wrongful death judgment that does not apportion damages among the heirs to be distributed like the deceased’s personal property, without each heir proving a pecuniary loss.

Adams v. Coleman · filed 1963-10-29

We therefore conclude that where an administrator institutes an action for the use and benefit of the heirs and next of kin of a decedent under Title 12 O.S. 1961 § 1053, for the wrongful death of decedent and recovers a judgment which has become final, and said judgment does not make an apportionment to the individual heirs and next of kin of the decedent, the proceeds of said judgment are distributable in the same manner as personal property of the decedent. We further conclude that when said judgment becomes final and an action is brought by an heir for his or her proportionate share of the proceeds of said judgment, said heir does not have to allege or prove a pecuniary loss.

Section 1053 requires an heir or next of kin to suffer a pecuniary loss to have a wrongful death cause of action; dependency on the deceased is not required.

Wallace v. State Industrial Court · filed 1965-09-14

We have construed Section 1053 to mean that an heir or next of kin must suffer a pecuniary loss in order to have a cause of action. The cause of action thereunder is not based upon “dependency upon deceased”, but upon a pecuniary loss to the heirs or next of kin by reason of the death of deceased.

Section 1053 gives a surviving spouse priority over next of kin to recover for a death, even if the spouse does not file a claim.

H. L. Maness Truck Lines v. Lemmons · filed 1965-11-23

Therefore since, under the above language and authorities, the only persons entitled to recover under the death benefit provisions of the Act are the same as those entitled to recover damages under 12 O.S. 1961, § 1053, Jacqueline Lemmons, as the surviving wife of the deceased, is the only person entitled to maintain and recover death benefits herein since next of kin, such as the claimants, may only recover under the statute in the event deceased left no surviving spouse or dependent children.

Section 1053 permits a parent to recover for reasonably expected pecuniary benefits lost through a child’s death without proving financial dependence on the child.

Rogers v. Worthan · filed 1970-02-10

Recovery in a wrongful death action is not contingent upon a showing that the claimant had been dependent, to some extent, upon the deceased. Even great wealth would not, of itself, preclude the recovery of damages for any pecuniary benefits which a claimant might, reasonably, have expected to receive if the deceased had lived.

Section 1053 gives surviving children a beneficial interest in a wrongful death recovery.

Abel v. Tisdale · filed 1980-10-28

However, 12 O.S.1971 § 1053 gives the surviving children a beneficial interest in the recovery.

Section 1053 allows siblings to recover pecuniary loss as next of kin, but does not allow them damages for loss of a deceased minor sibling’s love, affection, or companionship.

Clark v. Jones · filed 1983-02-08(B)

Recovery of these, previously non-cognizable, elements of damage is explicitly limited by § 1053 to the surviving spouse, children and parents of the decedent according to the losses sustained.

Section 1053 requires wrongful death claims to be prosecuted by the administratrix while preserving each beneficiary’s right to recover for a separate loss.

Gleason v. City of Oklahoma City · filed 1983-06-24

The constraint of section 1053 requiring the joinder of such claims to be prosecuted by the ad-ministratrix was not intended to deprive the beneficiaries of their right to assert separate losses.

Section 1053(D) assigns the division of wrongful death damages for pecuniary loss and loss of companionship to the trial judge rather than the jury or intestate law.

Superior Supply Co. v. Torres · filed 1995-01-24(D)

This amended version changed the responsibility for division of damages for pecuniary loss and loss of companionship in wrongful death actions from the jury to the trial court and eliminated the division of wrongful death damages in accordance with Oklahoma intestate law.

Section 1053, as amended in 1979, permits recovery for a surviving spouse’s grief and loss of consortium and for children’s and parents’ grief and loss of companionship.

Gaither by & Through Chalfin v. City of Tulsa · filed 1983-05-24

This argument has been nullified by the enactment of the 1979 amendment of § 1053 which permits recovery for grief and loss of consortium and companionship to the surviving spouse, children and parents of the decedent.

Section 1053(B) allows parents to recover for grief and loss of companionship only when they are the decedent’s next of kin.

Ouellette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1994-06-28(B)

Only when the parents are the decedent’s next of kin may they press for “grief and loss of companionship” damages as an element of their authorized recovery.

Section 1053(B) allows parents to claim damages for grief and loss of companionship after a child’s wrongful death even when the decedent has surviving children.

Socia v. Traditions, Inc. · filed 2005-01-14(B)

By amending § 1053, we find the Legislature clearly intended to explicitly provide parents with a right to claim an element of damage for their “grief and loss of companionship” occasioned by the wrongful death of their child. We also find this right exists whether or not there are also surviving children of the decedent.

Section 1053(D) does not automatically bar a parent from receiving wrongful death damages for grief and loss of companionship because the parent physically or financially deserted the child.

Matter of Estate of Lovely · filed 1993-01-12(D)

Our wrongful death statute does not provide that a parent who deserts his child either physically or financially forfeits, as a matter of law, his right to recover appropriate damages for wrongful death.

Section 1053 protects a parent's right to pursue a wrongful death action for an adult, unmarried, childless decedent when workers' compensation provides the parent no death benefit.

WHIPPLE v. PHILLIPS AND SONS TRUCKING · filed 2020-09-21

We hold that the right of a parent as the next of kin to bring a wrongful death action when the decedent is an adult, unmarried, and childless, is crystalized in the law pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §1053 and art. 23 §7 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Therefore, the Legislative attempt to deny recovery for wrongful death pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2014 §47 to the mother of her unmarried childless son is unconstitutional.

Section 1053 gives a wrongful death beneficiary a claim that does not abate if the beneficiary dies during litigation; the beneficiary’s administrator may pursue it for the estate.

Parker v. National Zinc Company · filed 1965-09-28

Therefore, in view of the above authorities, the question arises, whether an action for wrongful death abates upon the death of the statutory beneficiary during the pendency of litigation. We hold it does not.

Section 1053 provides a wrongful death claim distinct from a survival claim under section 1051; both claims may be brought for the same death.

Singh v. ABF Freight System, Inc. · filed 2021-10-06

A claim for survival under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1051 is distinct from a claim for wrongful death under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1053.

Section 1053 allows recovery of medical and burial expenses, specified losses suffered by the decedent and survivors, and punitive damages in proper wrongful death cases.

McKellips v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. · filed 1987-07-21

Damages recoverable in actions for wrongful death in Oklahoma are contained in 12 O.S.1981 § 1053 which includes medical and burial expenses, loss of consortium and grief of the surviving spouse, mental pain and anguish suffered by the decedent, pecuniary loss to the survivors, grief and loss of companionship of the children and the decedent, and in proper cases, punitive damages.

Section 1053 permits wrongful death damages for a surviving spouse’s loss of consortium and grief, the decedent’s mental pain and anguish, and children’s grief and loss of companionship.

Patten v. GMC, Chevrolet Motor Div. · filed 1987-12-22

Thus, Colorado law does not permit recovery of damages for loss of consortium and grief of the surviving spouse, mental pain and anguish suffered by the decedent, and the grief and loss of companionship of the children of the decedent, recoverable under Oklahoma’s wrongful death statute. Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 1053.

A wrongful death recovery under Section 1053 may bear prejudgment interest under Section 727 when the decedent could have recovered that interest on a personal injury claim had he lived.

Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc. · filed 1979-03-22

Oklahoma’s wrongful death statute is codified at 12 O.S.1971, § 1053, which provides: ... If decedent had lived, he could maintained an action for his personal injuries and recovered prejudgment interest. ... We therefore hold that the trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest on the amounts recovered under both the sur-vivorship and wrongful death causes of action.

Section 1053(B) permits compensation for a surviving spouse’s loss of consortium and grief and for the grief and loss of companionship of the decedent’s children and parents.

NYE v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. · filed 2018-06-19(B)

Following the jury's finding that BNSF was sixty-five percent negligent, the jury was allowed to compensate the spouse, children and parent of the decedent for loss of consortium, grief and loss of companionship pursuant to the Oklahoma statute. This Court finds that the jury was correctly instructed in Oklahoma law.

Section 1053’s limitation period bars an action filed after it expires unless the plaintiff alleges and proves facts that toll the period.

Owens v. Luckett · filed 1943-07-06

Plaintiff commenced this action nearly two years after expiration of the limitation period for such an action under 12 O. S. 1941 § 1053. ... Since otherwise the petition would have shown the cause to be barred, it was proper and necessary for plaintiff to allege facts to toll the statute of limitations.

Section 1053 creates a wrongful death action limited to deaths occurring in Oklahoma.

Richards v. United States · filed 1960-11-25

The right of action in that state is created by 12 O.S.1951 § 1053. ... But it does not indicate directly or indirectly a legislative intent or purpose to undertake to create a cause of action for wrongful death occurring in another state. Neither does it suggest an intent or purpose to make it apply to actions brought in the courts of Oklahoma for wrongful death occurring outside the state. Standing alone, it is limited in effect to wrongful deaths which occur in Oklahoma.

Section 1053 gives a personal representative two years from the date of death to bring a wrongful death action.

Kimberly v. DeWitt · filed 1980-02-14

The limitation provided in the wrongful death statute is two years, and it begins to run on the date of death.

Section 1053 creates a wrongful death action and sets a procedural two-year limitations period that must be construed with 76 O.S. § 18.

Redwine v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OKL. · filed 1983-05-10

In Oklahoma, the statute which creates an action for wrongful death is 12 O.S. 1981, § 1053, the forepart of which states: "When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, ... ." (Emphasis supplied.) It is a true statute of limitations, i.e., it is procedural and not a rule of substantive law which imposes a two year limitation as a condition to the exercise of a right. [10] It is in pari materia with 76 O.S. 1981, § 18, and both must be construed together.

Section 1053 requires wrongful death actions to be commenced within two years.

Fuchs v. Fleetwood Homes of Texas · filed 2006-10-31

Title 12 O.S.2001 § 1053 states that wrongful death actions "must be commenced within two (2) years." Thus, Plaintiffs' wrongfal death/products lability lawsuit was subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 1053 requires a wrongful death action to be commenced within two years; substituting a personal representative after that period does not relate back when the original plaintiff lacked authority to sue.

Moon v. Ellis · filed 1984-02-24

Appellant, when she filed her original petition herein, did not invoke the jurisdiction of the court as she was not the personal representative or surviving spouse. Because jurisdiction was not conferred originally, an amendment after the running of the period of limitation cannot confer such jurisdiction and cannot relate back to the filing of the original petition so as to prevent the bar of the statute.

Section 1053’s two-year wrongful death filing period is tolled during a surviving child’s minority.

Hamilton by and Through Hamilton v. Vaden · filed 1986-06-24

This Court decided in Brookshire v. Burkhart, 141 Okla. 1, 283 P. 571-72, 576-78 (1929), that the minority status of a surviving child tolls the limitation period prescribed by the wrongful death act, 12 O.S. 1971 §§ 1053, 1054. ... We find its reasoning to be sound and its holding to be controlling in answering the first certified question.

Section 1053(A) provides a two-year limitations period for a wrongful-death claim against a hospital that does not qualify as a political subdivision.

Roberts v. South Oklahoma City Hospital Trust · filed 1986-07-22(A)

We find that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the illusory nature of the trust prevents it from meeting the requisites of a public trust under the statutes. Therefore, the controlling statute of limitations is the two year statute contained in 12 O.S. 1981 § 1053(A).

Section 1053(A) provides a two-year limitations period for a wrongful death claim against a hospital that is not protected by the Governmental Tort Claims Act.

Fowler v. Norman Municipal Hospital · filed 1991-03-26(A)

Likewise, we find the Norman Municipal Hospital is not protected by the Act. Thus, the applicable statute of limitations period is two years.

Section 1053 permits only one action for a wrongful death, through which all entitled persons must recover.

Weavel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1992-12-29(A)

We find the long standing rule restricting wrongful death recovery to one action still to be the law in Oklahoma. The benefits to all those entitled under the law to recover must flow from that one action.

Section 1053 provides one cause of action for a wrongful death; recovery by the person entitled to sue exhausts that remedy even if an omitted beneficiary’s damages were not determined.

Wilson-Harris, Adm'x v. Southwest Telephone Co. · filed 1943-09-28

Proper weight was not given to the fact that the right to recover for wrongful death is given only by the statute, and that the action must stand or fall by the terms thereof. Since the statute contemplates but one cause of action vested in a single person, a recovery by that person exhausts the remedy given, and it makes no difference whether the damage to all of the beneficiaries was determined or not.

Section 1053 creates a wrongful death cause of action that accrues to the decedent’s next of kin at death and is separate from an action for the decedent’s pain and suffering.

Landry v. Acme Flour Mills Co. · filed 1949-07-19

The last above-quoted section has its origin in what, originally in England, was Lord Campbell’s Act and creates a new cause of action, unknown at common law, which accrues to the next of kin of the decedent at the time of death. It has no connection with, nor effect upon an action for pain and suffering as is here under consideration.

Section 1053 supplies the right of action for death, including death benefit claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Roberts v. Merrill · filed 1963-11-05

Any right of recovery for death, whether it be by an action at law for wrongful death or by a claim for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, exists by reason of the provisions of 12 O.S. 1961 § 1053.

Section 1053 creates a beneficiary’s wrongful death right at death; the right does not vest before then.

Teague v. Grand River Dam Authority · filed 1970-04-17

However, none of such cases recognizes any vested pecuniary right of the beneficiary as existing until the death. Instead the right covered by the wrongful death act is said to commence with the death.

Section 1053 gives survivors and heirs a wrongful death right that arises at death, so the law in effect on that date governs their recovery.

Independent School District No. 89 v. McReynolds · filed 1974-11-05

The right of survivors and heirs to recover damages for wrongful death exists solely by reason of the statute. Those named in the statute have no right of action until death results from injury. When that event occurs the cause of action vests in those recognized in the statute. Since this statutory right does not arise until death, it follows that the right which vests must be determined under the law in effect on that date.

Section 1053 allows a wrongful death claim, but next of kin cannot bring separate negligence or gross negligence claims based on the same death.

Pope v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · filed 2021-06-14(A)

Accordingly, while Plaintiffs have properly asserted a claim for wrongful death pursuant to 12 O.S. §§1053 and 1054, their common law claims for negligence and gross negligence are subject to dismissal.

Section 1053 gives the appointed personal representative control of a wrongful death action; a beneficiary cannot settle it without the representative’s consent.

National Valve & Mfg. Co. v. Wright · filed 1951-12-26

By 12 O.S. 1941 § 1053, an action for wrongful death is required to be brought by the personal representative, and by section 1054, the widow is authorized to bring the action if no personal representative has been appointed. ... We hold that the widow was without power or authority to enter into the settlement in this case, and that such settlement was not effective for any purpose unless agreed to or concurred in by the administrator.

Section 1053 permits an Oklahoma administrator to bring a wrongful death action in Oklahoma for a death in another state when that state's law authorizes an administrator to sue.

Fenton v. Sinclair Refining Co. · filed 1952-02-05

The Oklahoma statute authorizing an administrator to sue for wrongful death is 12 O. S. 1951 §1053. ... The Oklahoma administrator is under the control of the Oklahoma courts and the disposition of any fund recovered by him, in accordance with the laws of the state where the cause of action accrued, can be readily enforced. We therefore see no reason for denying an Oklahoma administrator the right to maintain such an action in the courts of this state.

Section 1053’s personal-representative priority also governs who may file and prosecute a workers’ compensation death-benefit claim.

Botts-Hulme & Odell v. Tate · filed 1953-11-03

In the cases of Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. Fuller, 206. Okl. 638, 245 P.2d 1134, and E. G. Nicholas Construction Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 207 Okl. 428, 250 P.2d 221, we pointed out that a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law must be filed and prosecuted by the same persons who, under the provisions of the wrongful death statutes, 12 O.S.1951 §§ 1053 and 1054, must file and prosecute that action. They are: First, “the personal representative” of the deceased, if there be one; second, if there be no personal representative, then “by the widow”; third, if there is no personal representative and “where there is no widow, by the next of kin of such deceased.” In the case at bar, the administrator was the proper party to present and prosecute the claim.

Section 1053 allows an estate administrator to bring a wrongful-death action regardless of the deceased’s residence.

Cook v. Knox · filed 1954-06-08

Qearly, under the latter section the adminstrator of an estate may maintain an action for the recovery of damages for wrongful death, irrespective of the residence of the deceased.

Section 1053 makes the personal representative the plaintiff in a wrongful death action regardless of the decedent’s residence; the same rule applies to co-administrators.

Lane v. Hughes · filed 1965-10-19

In construing the above statute we have placed much emphasis on the personal representative’s right to maintain an action for a decedent’s wrongful death, irrespective ■of the residence of the deceased. ... The personal representative’s capacity is more than a formal or nominal party to an action. ... We find no distinction where the action is commenced by two or more coad-ministrators.

Section 1053 permits a decedent’s adult child to sue for wrongful death as next of kin when the surviving spouse declines to sue, while its plaintiff hierarchy prevents concurrent actions.

Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home · filed 2005-10-18

Title 12 O.S.2001, §§ 1053 and 1054, do not preclude an action by Murg, Jr., individually, as next of kin, for wrongful death. The hierarchy of potential plaintiffs set forth in these sections exists merely to preclude concurrent causes of action filed by the potential parties enumerated therein.

Section 1053 allows a timely wrongful death action filed by an eligible person to proceed through substitution when someone else has priority to sue.

Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co. · filed 1994-12-06

Therefore, we hold that timely filing by any of the enumerated parties "who may sue" will properly commence a wrongful death action. If it transpires that the person who filed did not have the preeminent right to prosecute the action, that person should be substituted by the real party in interest, according to 12 O.S. 1991 § 2017, so as to prevent multiplicity of actions.

Section 1053 gives the personal representative the right to bring a wrongful death action, and a timely filing by another statutorily eligible party permits substitution of the representative.

Beal v. McCann · filed 1995-09-19

Therefore, timely filing by any of the three parties enumerated by statute will properly commence a wrongful death action. If the party filing did not have the preeminent right to prosecute the action pursuant to 12 O.S.1991, §§ 1053 and 1054, that party should be substituted by the real party in interest pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2017.

Section 1053(A)'s personal-representative requirement includes a representative appointed after a wrongful death action is filed.

Roth v. Mercy Health Center, Inc. · filed 2011-01-18(A)

Thus, a personal representative appointed later in time is nonetheless the personal representative as anticipated in the wrongful death act. Read together, sections 1053, 1054-and in the appropriate instances, section 11-prop-erly invoke a court's jurisdiction, so long as one of the statutorily enumerated parties maintains the action.

Section 1053 permits a deceased person's personal representative to bring a wrongful death action.

PIERSON v. JOPLIN · filed 2016-04-12

However, a wrongful death action can only be brought by the personal representative of the deceased, or the widow or next of kin if there is no appointed representative. 12 O.S.2011, §§ 1053, 1054. Appellants were not the appointed personal representative of Ms. Hall; therefore the only wrongful death action they were able to disclaim was their own, under 12 O.S.2011, § 1054, as next of kin.

Section 1053(A) makes an appointed personal representative the only proper party to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate and heirs.

Ratley v. Awad · filed 2021-05-07(A)

Thus, the personal representative, if one has been appointed, is the only proper party to bring both a survivorship action and a wrongful death action.

Section 1053 supplies a death-benefit claim when the employee could have pursued a covered injury before the Industrial Commission had he lived.

Quigley v. State Industrial Commission · filed 1956-05-22

The enactment of House Bill 734, above quoted, authorized the deceased, Neal Quigley, had he lived, to maintain an action in the State Industrial Commission for the injury. Therefore, by reason of 12 O.S.1951 § 1053, that situation permits the claimant, Evelyn Quigley, to maintain an action for his death as the result of such injuries.

Section 1053 provides a statutory wrongful death action against an employer, but workers’ compensation death benefits displace that action for a covered death.

Earnest, Inc. v. LeGrand · filed 1980-11-25

What the death benefits act did do was to abrogate the statutory right of action which an employee had against an employer under the wrongful death statute, now 12 O.S.Supp.1979, § 1053 and 12 O.S. 1971 § 1054, and limit the amount recoverable by the amount of compensation payable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Section 1053 permits a personal representative to bring a wrongful-death action when the decedent could have sued for the injury had she lived, including for negligent care and abandonment after an illegal abortion.

Henrie v. Griffith · filed 1964-10-06

The wrongful death statute, 12 O.S.1961 § 1053, provides that the personal representative of the deceased may maintain an action, if the deceased “might have maintained an action had he lived,” for an injury for the same act or omission. ... The allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death action only if the deceased could have maintained an action for the same act had he lived.

Hill v. Graham · filed 1967-01-06

We see nothing in such language which may be construed as giving plaintiff a,cause of action in circumstances where the statute, supra, would not have extended a right of action to deceased prior to his demise.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death action only if the deceased could have maintained an action for the injury had they lived.

Hale v. Hale · filed 1967-03-14

In order to recover for her pecuniary loss in this case, the plaintiff must bring herself within the provisions of the wrongful death statute, 12 O.S.1961, § 1053. This she cannot do for the reason, above discussed, that her child could not “have maintained an action had (she) lived” against her father.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death action for the benefit of unemancipated children against their deceased father’s estate when their mother could have sued him for the injury had she lived.

Stewart v. Harris · filed 1967-10-31

We therefore conclude that although an unemanci-pated minor child may not maintain an action against a parent for injuries sustained while unemancipated as a result of his parent’s ordinary negligence, such rule does not prohibit an action for the benefit of such child against the estate of his deceased father for the wrongful death of his mother under the provisions of Title 12 O.S. 1961, § 1053.

Section 1053 does not permit a wrongful-death action if the deceased person could not have maintained the action had they lived.

Workman v. Workman · filed 1972-05-09

The two deceased children in the instant case could not have maintained an action against the stepfather had they lived and an action may not be maintained against him for their wrongful death. Title 12 O.S.1961, § 1053.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death action only if the decedent could have maintained an action for the injury had they lived.

Riley v. Brown and Root, Inc. · filed 1992-08-24(A)

But Section 1053 provides now, as it has always provided, for an action of wrongful death only if the decedent might have maintained an action if he or she had lived.

Section 1053(A) requires a valid common-law claim to have arisen in favor of the decedent before a wrongful death action can proceed.

Graham v. Keuchel · filed 1993-01-26A

A valid common-law action must have arisen in favor of the decedent before a wrongful death action will lie.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death claim only if the decedent could have brought the underlying action had he lived.

Esther v. Wiemer · filed 1993-08-24

An action for wrongful death under 12 O.S. 1991 § 1053 is for the pecuniary loss sustained by the surviving spouse and children and is for the benefit of the estate. ... An action for wrongful death is also limited to actions which could have been brought by the decedent, had the decedent lived.

Section 1053 makes a wrongful death action dependent on the decedent having a right of action at the time of death.

Rios v. Nicor Drilling Co. · filed 1983-06-28(A)

The right to maintain a cause of action under the wrongful death statute is derivative and is dependent upon the continuance of the right in the decedent at the time of his death.

Section 1053 bars a wrongful death action if the decedent had no claim against the tortfeasor at death, including because the decedent’s injury claim was time-barred.

prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,622 Nettie Florence Huff, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph L. Huff, Deceased v. Fibreboard · filed 1987-12-30

12 O.S. § 1053 is, in our view, quite clear and provides that if the deceased on the date of his death had no cause of action against the tort-feasor for the injuries which caused his death, then his personal representative has no wrongful death action against that same tort-feasor. The statute is by its terms absolute and contains no exceptions to that particular condition.

Section 1053 permits a wrongful death action for a viable stillborn child if the child could have maintained an action for prenatal injury had the child lived.

Evans v. Olson · filed 1976-05-25

The intent of § 1053 was to allow a death action if the deceased might have maintained an action had he lived. Having here recognized a common-law negligence action to a surviving child suffering a prenatal injury, it must follow that a wrongful death action may be maintained for a viable fetus which is stillborn.

Section 1053 allowed a wrongful death action for a nonviable, stillborn fetus before its 2005 amendment.

Pino v. United States · filed 2008-04-01

It follows from our construction of title 12, section 1053 of the 2001 Oklahoma Statutes that the 2005 amendment to section 1053 was a clarification of law before the amendment.

Section 1053 afforded a wrongful death cause of action for a nonviable, stillborn fetus as of September 1-2, 2003.

Pino v. United States · filed 2008-04-08

For reasons explained in our certification order we did so, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court subsequently answered our certified question in the affirmative, holding that the state’s wrongful death statute did afford a cause of action for the wrongful death of a nonviable, stillborn fetus as of September 1-2, 2003. ... This answer is definitive and dispositive of the Pinos’ summary judgment appeal. ... With the Oklahoma Supreme Court now having concluded otherwise, we are obliged to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s orders or the opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Section 1053 permits a personal representative to bring a wrongful death action for a nonviable fetus born alive when prenatal injuries cause the child's death.

Nealis v. Baird · filed 1999-12-07

We hold that where a nonviable fetus is born alive, its personal representatives may bring a wrongful death action based on the prenatal injuries resulting in its death.

Section 1053 allows the personal representative to bring one wrongful death action for all survivors, but it does not enlarge the limits of an applicable insurance policy.

White v. Equity Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1991-05-30(A)

Survivors may seek damages under Oklahoma’s Wrongful Death Statute, 12 O.S. 1981 § 1053. This type of action is brought by the personal representative in one action for all of the survivors, and the damages recovered, if any, are distributed accordingly. However, the wrongful death statute may not be used to enlarge the terms of the insurance policy or to expand the damages allowed thereunder.

Section 1053(B) allows wrongful death beneficiaries to recover uninsured motorist proceeds for the death, regardless of the policy’s payment terms.

Forbes v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1995-09-12(B)

We conclude that in the context of an insured’s death by an uninsured negligent driver, UM insurance proceeds represent damages which may be recovered by those entitled by § 1053(B) to bring a wrongful death action regardless of what the insurance contract provides.

Section 1053 creates a separate wrongful death claim for statutory beneficiaries, who are not bound by an arbitration agreement signed on the decedent's behalf.

BOLER v. SECURITY HEALTH CARE, L.L.C. · filed 2014-09-30

We conclude that the wrongful death claim accrues separately to the wrongful death beneficiaries and is intended to compensate them for their own losses. The personal representative is prosecuting the wrongful death claim on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries set out in 12 O.S. § 1053. The trial court did not err in denying Grace's motion to compel arbitration of the wrongful death claim.

Section 1053 creates a wrongful death claim for beneficiaries’ own losses, so a decedent’s arbitration agreement does not bind beneficiaries who did not sign it.

Ipock v. Manor Care of Tulsa Ok, LLC · filed 2017-04-04

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the defendant could not compel arbitration because a wrongful death claim brought under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1053 is not a wholly derivative claim. Id. at 477. Under Oklahoma law, a wrongful death claim “accrues separately to the wrongful death beneficiaries and is intended to compensate them for their own losses.” Id. Because a wrongful death claim is brought on behalf of a decedent’s next of kin for their own losses with recovery paid directly to the next of kin and not the estate of the deceased, “a decedent cannot bind the beneficiaries to arbitrate their wrongful death claim.” Id. Thus, under Oklahoma law, defendant cannot compel plaintiff to arbitrate his wrongful death claim based on an arbitration agreement he did not sign.