Case ID: ky_209/html/0550-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Drury, Commissioner", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Dickerson’s Administrator.
    (Decided June 12, 1925.)
    Appeal from Carlisle Circuit Court.
    Death — $8,100.00 for Death of One with Life Expectancy of 27 Years Held Not Excessive. — Verdict of $8,100.00 for death held not excessive, where deceased had life expectancy of over 27 years, and an annual income of $360.00 per year, and in addition cultivated a small crop for family, and also earned some other money working-for others.
    TRABUE, DOOLAN, HELM & HELM, JOHN E. KANE and R. V. FLETCHER for appellant.
    BEN S. ADAMS and R. M. SHELBOURNE for appellee.
   Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner

Affirming.

The appellant was defendant below, and has appealed and asked for the reversal of a judgment for $8,100.00 recovered against it by the appellee as plaintiff below.. Buck Dickerson was killed while employed by the defendant, and the circumstances attending his death are so fully described in the opinion rendered in ■the case, of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Halterman, 208 Ky. 811, that it is not necessary to repeat them here. Neither is it necessary to discuss in this opinion the various alleged errors relied on by appellant, as they are fully disposed of in our opinion in the Halterman ease.

However, the defendant is complaining of the size of the verdict, and insists that it is excessive. The proof shows that Dickerson was a sober, industrious man; that he had been employed by the defendant for more than four years. On the day he was killed, his earnings were $4.05. The defendant insists, however, that the proof only shows that he was earning something like $360.00 per year: Granting that he was earning that much and no more, the proof showed that the man had an expectancy of 27.34 years, and at the low estimate of his- earnings relied upon by defendant, if he lived out his expectancy and never received an advancement or promotion of any kind, he would have earned almost $10,000.00. The proof showed that in addition to the $360.00 paid him by defendant, he cultivated^ a small '■crop, produced the corn and meat needed for his family and earned some money by working for other people. Hnder the circumstances, we cannot say the verdict is -excessive.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.