The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-13

| ing to the value of life, whether Of rich
or poor. The action was for damages fol
loss OF services, not for loss of life, anc
the whole question in the case was
whether the evidence was sufficient tt
show that the child's services during his
minority would have been worth $4,000
and the whole decision was that the evil
dence did not prove that fact. In dis
GUESSING this question it was said-as has
been said in other cases in other States
that there Is q presumption that the child
If he had not been killed, would have fol
lowed during his minority the occupation
of his father. 1t is upon this expression
that all adverse criticism has been ex.
pended, and it is from this that the con-
ciusion has been drawn that the court
was discriminating in favor of the rich
against the poor. But in truth the discrim-
ination, if any had been intended would
have been the other way; for it is a fact
universally known that the children OF
the rich and prosperous rarely earn
anything for their parents.
All the fault found with this decision
proceeds from the assumption that In ar
cover the value of his childs life. But
this is a wholly mistaken view. There Is
no pecuniary measure of the value OF
human life, and neither courts nor juries
I ture might fix such valuation by law
but in this State the Legislature has
never done so, and the courts in the
meantime can give a bereaved parent
u
cept the probable value of his services
which, being purely conjectural can only
be estimated upon the presumption that
he will follow some useful occupation
and that during his minority that will be
the occupation OF his father.
Garrett w. McEneruey-The Supreme
Court did not decide in the case of Lorin
Fox vs.. The Oakland Consolidated Rail
of the life of a rich mans son is greater
than that of poor mans son, nor did the
court decide any proposition from which
that conclusion ensues either directly or
remotely. In fact, Judge Van Fleet, who
wrote the opinion, lays down the very op-
posite at the foot of page Ga of the report.
he there says, following the language of
Judge Dillon:
the rich and different rule for the poor"
1t will therefore be seen that the deci-
sion does not make one rule for the rich
and a different rule for the poor.
AS have already said, the decision does
not esta blish any proposition from which
that conclusion ensues, either directly or
remotely. A few facts will make this very
plain.
The. plaintiff, Lorin Fox, is a plumber
and timer by trade. He resided with mis-
wife and their children, consisting of a
daughter u years of age and boy ~
years, on Tenth street, near Franklin, in
Oakland. The boy strayed over to Frank
lin street, violating his mothers instruc-
lions In SO going %en5 upon the track
"
pany, was run down by one of its cars
and killed. The father sued for damages
set this verdict aside the ground that
the damages were greater than the law
allowed to be given in such a case.
van Fee fu wa 81 horn and %cS bs
bound to apply to the cases which come
before him for decision and which rule
he has no more right to set aside than
have, that a parent can only recover for
the loss of an infant child through negli-
gence 1.-The probable value of the services
of the deceased until he had attained his
majority, taking into consideration the
cost of his support and maintenance dur
ing the early and helpless part of his
Judge Van Fleet pointed out that, &C
cording to all of the probabilities of the
case, the child would not have earned for
his father, between the time of his death
and his arrival at majority had he lived
after deducting all expenses Of support
and maintenance, the sum of $4,000.
That being so, the verdict had to be set
aside The of can woue
amounted to during minority. When g
child arrives at his majority his earn
| ings no longer belong to his parents.
The decision up to this point is, there.
| fore not only free from just criticism. but
II has heretofore been free from any criti-
cism at all. But It is said that In partic'
uar portion of the decision a rule Is an.
nounced which makes the value Of the
! life of a rich mans son greater than thai
of a poor man. The particular Language
which is supposed to involve this result
And while In no sense conclusive, we
have the right, and 1t is most reasonable
occupation the deceased would have pur-
sued to regard, with the other circum-
stances surrounding him, the calling. OF
his father-since, experience teaches that
same general class of business as that OF
their parents Walters vs.. Chicago etc
r. r. Co., Al Iowa, II, 49,"
| This language simply means that 1T had
| been decidog by the Supreme Court OF
| Iowa that although great numbers OF
! children do not follow the occupations OF
| their fathers, nevertheless, in dealing
with the unknown future of child killed
in infancy. 1t is proper to consider the oc-
cupation of his father, because experience
teaches that children do frequently follow
followed by their parents. Judge Van
Fleet adopted the rule, as a reasonable
one.
This language and rule have been sup
posed to involve the result that more
damages would be awarded to rich man
on the death Of his son through negli-
gence than would be awarded to poor
man upon the. death Of his child. The
very contrary is the result, although the
allie. - ' . ''' ''pp' mo " '' A'''e
It is matter of universal knowledge
that the children. of poor men become
bread earners earlier than the children OF
rich men. If man is poor and has a
large family, it is mportant-indeed, abb
solutely necessary-that his children
should become self-suporting bread win
ners and bread earners earlier in life than
the children of his more fortunate neigh
bors. So that the humber a mans call
! ing may be thu value of his childs life to
him, under this rule of law. is all the
| greater.
| Take laborer with a large family and
apply the rule to his case and then ap-
| ply 1t to that of a lawyer or a physician.
| In the case. of a laborer. his poorly paid
labor must support large family until
| his children arrive at an age when they
| can contribute something to the support
of the household. AS soon as that fine
arrives his children become bread-win-
ners, and the earlier they become bread
winners the more value in a pecuniary
sense and under this rule of law are
those children to him.
| On the other hand, If the sons of a
lawyer or a physician follow the calIings
of their fathers, they cannot become. and
| they are not, bread-winners until after
| they attain their majority. A lawyer can
| not be admitted to practice until he is
u. The training necessary to fit a man
for the calling of physician takes him
past his majority. So that, in the two
I last named cases, the rule that they
would probably follow the caIlings al
their fathers would make their pecuniary
| value, under this rule of law. much less
| than the pecuniary value of the sons of
a laborer whose lot in life makes 1t nee
essary for. him to find remunerative ON
plOyfnent for his children long haforo +ha,,