Case Name: Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Edith Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants. Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Robert Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1958-06-02
Citations: 17 Ill. App. 2d 527
Docket Number: Term No. 57-M-6
Parties: Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Edith Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants. Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Robert Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Second Series
Volume: 17
Pages: 527–536

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Edith Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants. Elizabeth Barrow, Administrator of Estate of Robert Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. John Lence and Gladys Baker, Defendants.
Term No. 57-M-6.
Fourth District.
June 2, 1958.
Released for publication June 30, 1958.
Franklin, Garrison & Bleyer, of Marion, for defendants-appellants.
R. Wallace Karraker, of Jonesboro, for plaintiffappellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from companion cases arising under the same set of facts, to recover damages for tbe wrongful deaths of Robert Graham and Edith Gra ham, contended to have been caused by defendants. Liability was admitted in both cases and only the question of damages was contested. The cases were consolidated and tried together and will be treated together in this opinion. The jury returned verdicts of $12,500 in each of the cases. The verdicts were sustained by the Trial Court.
On appeal in this Court it is contended by defendants that since the decedent, Robert Graham, was 64 years of age and had been unemployed for five years before his death, and was receiving a pension of only $66 per month as his sole income; and since the decedent, Edith Graham, was 61 years of age and was unemployed for about a year and four months before her death, and had an income consisting of a pension of $118 per month; and since the only next of kin of the decedents was an adult daughter, Elizabeth Barrow, plaintiff, who was a married woman, living on a farm with her husband, and who was separately employed and not a direct dependent of her father and mother — that the verdicts cannot be sustained. The only direct evidence of a contribution by the decedents to the daughter was evidence of a gift of $100 to apply on a refrigerator purchase, and gifts of food and small amounts of money from time to time. The evidence also showed that the decedents owned and lived in their own home separate and apart from the daughter and rendered no services to her.
It being demonstrated by the evidence that the daughter was not dependent upon the decedents for support and was receiving no services from them, the remaining element of pecuniary loss to be considered was what amount in all probability the decedents would have added to their estates but for their wrongful deaths. Jury v. Ogden, 56 Ill. App. 100; The North Chicago R. Co. v. Brodie, 156 Ill. 317; The Chicago, Peoria and St. Louis R. Co. v. Woolridge, 174 Ill. 330, 51 N. E. 701; Hudnut v. Schmidt, 324 Ill. App. 548; Wilcox v. Bierd, 330 Ill. 571.
Based upon the established pattern of earning capacity of the decedents shown by the evidence, the verdicts are, in our opinion, so excessive as to indicate they were the result of passion or prejudice. Our conclusion in this respect is fortified by the fact that the jury entirely disregarded the evidence in awarding the same amount for the death of the father as the mother. The showing was made that he had not been employed for a period of five years, whereas she had been retired for approximately one year; that he was three years older than she; and that his income was little more than half of hers.