The record-union., 1898-10-07
THE CASE OF JUDGE VAN FLEET.

tended the candidacy Of any one. He
mas the misfortune to be misunder-
stood in a matter wherein the explana-
ton which would remove the misunder-
standing is most difficult. He has writ
ten decision for the court of which
he is member, the true scope and eff
feet of which is not even remotely
apprehended by lay intelligence.
The reason for this is that the ex-
planation which would acquit Judge
Van Fleet Of the charges made against
him to be understood involves a pre-
pafatory education in elemental law.
The purpose of this article is to at
tempt an explanation which will sim
pify the issues involved TO a level with
the common understanding.
First, then, what is the charge?
1t is charged that in rendering a de-
cision in a case involving damages for
the services of minor child who was
killed by an Oakland street car,
Judge Van Fleet declared that a poor
mans son was not worth as much as Il
rich mans son. The question is: Did
Judge Van Fleet render a decision de-
claring this to be a principle of law
Did he render a decision, which by any
distortion can be made to appear as
making distinction between the value
of a poor mans and a rich mans son?
Let an impartial statement of the facts
of this case determine and answer this
question.
A boy, four and half years Of age,
was killed by an Oakland Street Trans
portation Company. The father brought
suit for the value of the services this
child would have rendered during its
minority if it had lived.
The distinction must be plainly borne
in mind that the suit was for the value
of the services of this child, not for
the value of its life. The complaint
raised no issue as to the value of a
human life. It raised no question Of
damages to the parents for suffering
due to grief or bereavement. 1t raised
no issue as to what a father would take
for the life of his son; nor for restitu-
ton, nor retaliation, nor exemplary
damages, but simply and plainly a
claim for the value of the services this
child would have rendered during its
minority had it's life not been taken by
the unfortunate accident
The verdict of the jury rendered in
the court of original jurisdiction was
for the sum of $4,000. The defendant
corporation appealed on the ground of
excessive damages; that is, the cor
poration denied that the services which
child would render during minority,
after the cost of maintenance and edu-
cation was subtracted, would not be
equal to $4,000.
1t is at this point that the difficulty of
explanation arises. To the average
understanding the case is presented as
suit for the value of the life of the
child No compensation for the loss Of
the child was sought, nor does the law
| give a right to any such recovery. 1t
was a claim simply and solely for the
value of the service he would have rem
dered in excess of the cost Of his main
| tenance during his minority. In the
| light of this fact $4,000 becomes ex-
cessive.
The demonstrated value of the serv-
| ices of a child after subtracting the cost
| OF maintenance during its minority is
not hypothetical Observation and ex-
| perience in this line are broadly COM
mon, and may be appealed to. What
| father has realized $4,000 in cash tor
the services, of a minor child, after sub
| tracing the cost of maintenance and
education during his minority? Among
| the thousands and tens of thousands
of fathers who have raised sons, is
there one to say that he has realized
| $4,000 in cash over and above the COST
of maintaining a son during his MI
nority? The only matter or thlng IN
| issue before the Supreme Court was as
to whether $4,000 was or was not ex-
| cessive damages, as shown by the evil
dence.
| But the lay mind stubbornly refuses
| to divest itself of the idea that S6,OoO
was the measure Of the value OF the
| child to it's parents, when estimated
by the place it occupied in their affec-
tions.
In rendering the decision Judge Van
| Fleet stated that one standard Of estl-
mate was afforded by the presumption
that the service of child would render
| during its minority would be in the
line of the occupation of the father;
| or more plainly stated. that If the
| father was a carpenter the son would
| assist him in the prosecution of his
| trade. This was clearly reasonable,
| and by this standard the services Of the
mechanics child becomes worth more
to it's parents than the child Of the
capitalist or the professional man. The
| children of the poor at an early age
| are expected to become self-supporting
| and contribute something to the sup
port of the rest of the family. No
such expectation attaches to the Off
spring of the rich. The decision is alb
solutely void of all significance as to
| establishing one law for the rich and
another for the poor. It is also inno-
cent of the charge that it declared a
poor mans son to be worth less than
rich mans son. In very truth it de-
clared nothing concerning the value of
| sons. It declared nothing concerning
the value of life in any respect. 1t re-
| lated wholly to the question Of the
value of the services of the child dur
| ing it's minority. and found a plain,
| common-sense standard by which the
value might reasonably be determined.
This is all there is of the decision.
| Its critics declare that the statement
that the child is most likely to follow
the occupation of the father has proven
untrue; that great men have arisen
from humble conditions, Lincoln, Gar
| field and Grant are cited as instances /;
but these great men did not achieve
| greatness between the ages of four and
half and twenty-one years. The very
| instances cited establish the business
Of Judge Van Fleets rendering. Lin
coin and Grant and Garfield followed
humble occupations until long after
their majority.
| Actions for damages for the services
of a child lost by reason of his acci-
| dental death do not relate to the SER
vice he might have rendered his coun-
| try or the world Such actions in the