Who has standing for wrongful death claims? A person's estate, relatives, and dependents generally have standing to sue for damages under wrongful death statutes. Do any other persons or entities have standing to sue for damages under those or any similar or analogous statutes? For example: A decedent's employer who has lost income due to business disruption from the unexpected loss of the employee? An employee of the person who reasonably expected long-term employment? E.g., a nurse who provided care for a chronic health condition of the decedent?
In the United States, wrongful death is generally a statutory cause of action, rather than a common law tort, so the potential plaintiffs are generally limited to those specifically identified in the relevant statute. In California, for instance, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60 limits the action to the following plaintiffs: The decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children If there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession. If they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, or parents. A minor who resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent’s household and was dependent on the decedent for one-half or more of the minor’s support. In the absence of a constitutional problem (an equal protection violation, most likely), courts have no authority to extend standing to anyone outside the statutorily designated categories. Ferry v. De Longhi Am. Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 940, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“The decision of the Legislature as to just how far to extend a statutorily created right of action ‘is conclusive, unless it appears beyond rational doubt that an arbitrary discrimination between persons or classes similarly situated has been made without any reasonable cause therefor.’”)
The common law rule was that to inherit you have to outlive the decedent from whom you are inheriting, and that the inheritance would pass to your estate if you died before distribution was made. Statutes in some jurisdictions provide that someone must survive for a longer period than that to be eligible to inherit, often five days, in order to simplify the factual issues in the common situation of a joint accident. Pennsylvania is one such state. But a will or trust can deviate from the default rule, and in U.S. practice, driven by federal estate tax laws, it isn't uncommon to require someone to survive the decedent by at least six months to inherit from them under an instrument. In this case, where more than a year has passed since the death, the inheritance would not lapse for these reasons. It also isn't uncommon for a trust, either established during life, or established at death, to provide that distributions from the trust are made at the discretion of the trustee and to require in those cases that the person receiving the distribution also be living at the time of the distribution. These trusts also typically contain specific provisions that spell out the rights of a beneficiary who dies before the trust is fully distributed.
A company is liable for the actions of its agents This is known as vicarious liability and some well-established situations where this happens is in employer-employee and company-officer, &quot;executives&quot;, if senior enough, would be both employees and officers. Without it, the concept of a company just doesn't work - a company is only a record in a database, it can only act through human agents. So, if an employee or officer of the company by act or omission causes harm in the course of executing their duties, then the company has caused the harm. It is not enough for a company to have adequate &quot;internal procedures&quot;, it (which is to say the people with the power to act for it) must ensure that those procedures are followed and actually work. The allegations include that at least some senior personnel were aware that breaches of the law were occurring and they did not take steps to stop them - what they know, the company knows; what they do or don't do, the company does or doesn't do.
The will is overridden by the new law. Suppose the owner had not died: then he would have to comply with the change in the law. When a person inherits property, they gain the right to that property which the originally had, and they do not gain any additional immunity to the usual obligation to obey the law.
No Let's consider a similar scenario. If you made a beverage which poisoned a number of people, would you be absolved of liability because you gave it away for free? Of course not. As there is no contract between you, they would have to bring an action against you in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement OR under consumer protection law. To succeed at tort they would need to prove that you owed them a duty of care; from Donoghue v Stevenson "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure ... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in contemplation ...". Most cases will founder on your inability to foresee the use to which your software may be put. Consumer law is jurisdiction specific but they generally contain warranties that what you provide (gratis or otherwise) is fit for purpose, merchantable and that you do not make false and misleading statements. There is a chance that a case brought under this sort of law could succeed as you have not limited the purpose, specifically declared that it is not of merchantable quality and have (presumable) said what it does so that, if it doesn't do what you said, you have been misleading and deceptive.
No. The custodial person that is meant by this are usually the parents or another court-appointed person that stands in for their parents. I think the common law term closest is "legal guardian". The details are defined in § 1616 ff. of the German civil code.
Sadly, her assets will go into probate, and a judge/probate master will have to rule on how they're disbursed. Typically someone will be appointed as Administrator to the mother's estate. The administrator will contact all creditors, assemble and inventory/appraise the assets (i.e. furniture, car, house, bank accounts, etc.) and pay funerary expenses. Since she died intestate, there will be certain specific rules about who inherits the proceeds. The best avenue for the OP is to petition the court to appoint her as administrator of the estate.
Wills typically handle this by specifying a survivorship period. Such a clause may say, in effect, "I leave all my assets to my spouse, provided they survive me by at least 30 days, and otherwise to beneficiaries X,Y,Z." That way, if your spouse dies shortly after you, your assets go to X,Y,Z, rather than going to your spouse and then to their beneficiaries. Another issue this avoids: suppose you are in an accident together, and by the time rescuers arrive, you are both dead. Without a survivorship period requirement, courts might have to try to determine whether one of you survived a few seconds longer than the other, in order to decide whose beneficiaries get the assets. That could be difficult and error-prone, not to mention gruesome and upsetting to loved ones. But with such a requirement, it's not necessary. The linked article notes that in many jurisdictions, if you don't specify a survivorship period, there may be a statutory period that applies automatically.