The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-13
JUSTICE VAN FLEET AND HIS
SLANDERER.

Its editorial columns, reproduces the SANDER
upon Justice Van Fleet, which it published about
year ago at the time the opinion in the case OF Fox
VS.. the Oakland Consolidated Railroad Company was
rendered charging him with discriminating IN has
opinion against the poor There is not syllable
IN the opinion which purports to draw a distinction
comparison between the rich and the poor and the
| attempt to create class antagonsm by imputing
such purpose to Justice Van Fleet is unwarranted
attack upon the judiciary; for, although the opinion
was written by Justice Van Fleet it concurred in
by the entire court and is but the statement of well
recognized rule of law.
At common law father could not maintain an &C
ton for the death of his son by the negligence OF
another but under statutes enacted IN modern days
damages tor such negligence may be recovered. In
many States the amount is limited to $4,000 but IN
this State there is limit to the amount of recovery,
except that the jury may give such damages as
der all the circumstances of the may be just
The Civil Code defines damages to be compensation
in money and the term compensation" by its own
force limits the of recovery the actual loss
of the party who has sustained the injury. By the
statute authorizing the action the circumstances OF
the become, then the guide in determining the
amount of damages which will be just in each case
and this involves inquiry into all the circumstances
which tend to show the amount of loss. The father
is entitled to the services of the during his min
GRITTY but he is also under obligation to elothe and
maintain him during this period and the actual DAM
age which he sustains by his death is the amount OF
money which would compensate him for the excess
of his earnings the cost Of his maintenance Of
course it cannot be determined in advance whether
the child will be employed in any service; or, II SO
EMPLOYED what his wages will amount to, but
uries permitted to render verdicts upon con-
lecture or without some evidence upon which they
tty Of
shown by the best obtanabe evidence 1t is upon this
principle that in the case of adult evidence is ad
mitted showing the amount of wages which he
earning at the time of his death, and the number of
years which he would probably live, not upon the
ground that he will always receive that amount of
wages or that he will live that number of years, but
as being the satisfactory method of arriving at
just estimate of his loss This is what the plaintiff
in the Fox sought to recover and all that was
said in the opinion of Justice Van Fleet was in cor
roboration of this rue-that for the purpose of de-
terminng the probable occupation the child would
have pursued it was reasonable to conclude that it
would have followed the calling of the father for the
reason, which no deny, that experience teaches
that children do very frequently pursue the bust
ness of the parents, whether they be rich or poor
What Justice Van Fleet did say is as follows: "WhHe
in eonelnstOs, have the right, and it is
most reasonable in Judging OF the probable character
occupation the deceased would have pursued, to
regard with the other circumstances surrounding him
the calling of his father-since experience teaches
that children do very frequently pursue the
general class of business that of their parents In
his opinion he refers to in the Iowa reports,
where the rule approved in the instruction
given to jury in nearly the language In fact
the real tendency of the opinion, well of the rule
which expounds, would authorize greater verdict
for Door man than for rich man, for it is an I'M
doubted fact that the of rich is pecuniary
expense to his father, without any possibility of in
como during his minority, and jury acting upon this
well-known fact would give the rich parent nominal
verdict where the poor man would receive sub
stantia one