Case Name: Fred S. MOORE et al., Petitioners, v. Douglas Stephen LILLEBO, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1986-07-09
Citations: 722 S.W.2d 683
Docket Number: No. C-3508
Parties: Fred S. MOORE et al., Petitioners, v. Douglas Stephen LILLEBO, Respondent.
Judges: SPEARS, J., joined by GONZALEZ, J., dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 722
Pages: 683–692

Head Matter:
Fred S. MOORE et al., Petitioners, v. Douglas Stephen LILLEBO, Respondent.
No. C-3508.
Supreme Court of Texas.
July 9, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1987.
Malcolm McGregor, El Paso, for petitioners.
Sam Sparks, Grambling, Mounce, Sims, Galatzan & Harris, El Paso, for respondent.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Justice.
Fred Moore and Martha Theaker sued Douglas Stephen Lillebo for the wrongful death of their adult son, Paul Moore. Lille-bo allegedly fell asleep while driving his car. An accident occurred and Paul, a passenger in Lillebo's car, was killed. The jury found Lillebo 60% negligent and awarded $2,500 in pecuniary damages to Moore and $4,000 in pecuniary damages to Theaker.
Moore and Theaker each requested a single issue which asked the jury to determine damages, if any, for loss of companionship and society, and for mental anguish resulting from Paul's death. The trial judge refused to submit the issues. On appeal, Moore and Theaker contended the trial judge improperly refused to submit their issues. The court of appeals held there was evidence of loss of companionship and society as to each party but concluded there was no evidence the parties suffered mental anguish as a result of Paul's death. Therefore, the court held it was not error to refuse to submit the requested issues. 674 S.W.2d 474. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause for a new trial.
In 1983, this court rejected the pecuniary loss rule in response to the "seminal question" of "whether damages for mental anguish are recoverable under the Texas Wrongful Death Act for the death of a child." Sanchez v. Schindler, 651 S.W.2d 249, 250 (Tex.1983). We recognized in that case, as before, that "injuries to the familial relationship are significant injuries and are worthy of compensation." Id. at 252; Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S.W.2d 665, 668 (Tex.1978). Then, as now, we observed that a "destruction of the parent-child relationship results in mental anguish, and it would be unrealistic to separate injury to the familial relationship from emotional injury." Sanchez, 651 S.W.2d at 253. When such emotional injuries are alleged, a plaintiff should be permitted to prove them, including recovery for mental anguish. Id.
Sanchez involved a parent's claim for mental anguish for the loss of a minor child. In Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., we expanded the scope of permitted recovery for mental anguish damages to include all family members listed in the wrongful death act. 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1985). In the face of a contention that children should not be allowed to recover mental anguish damages, we said "there is no logical reason to treat an injury to the familial relationship resulting from the wrongful death of any family member . differently than an injury to such relationship resulting from the wrongful death of a child." Id. at 551.
Generally, before awarding mental anguish damages, the majority of states, including Texas, requires proof of a physical injury resulting from mental anguish, or a physical manifestation of mental anguish. See Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171, 175 n. 5 (1982); Earned v. E-Z Finance Co., 151 Tex. 641, 254 S.W.2d 81 (1953). In some cases, however, we have recognized exceptions to this general rule. See Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.1967).
These exceptions have involved cases of intentional torts, gross negligence, or a willful and wanton disregard for another's rights. See, e.g., Brown v, American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 939 (Tex.1980) (rule stated). Thus, we have allowed an award of mental anguish damages for wrongful dishonor of checks upon a showing of malicious intent. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Krum v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.1981). We held damages for mental anguish recoverable for a willful and unwarranted invasion of privacy in Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 861 (Tex.1973). And, in a case of assault and battery, we approved mental anguish damages without forcing the plaintiff to demonstrate any resulting physical injury. Fisher, 424 S.W.2d at 630.
Other exceptions exist. Quite often, the nature of the tort alleged assures courts of the genuineness of mental anguish claims, even without resort to proof of physical manifestation. In Stuart v. Western Union Telegraph Co., we allowed recovery for mental anguish damages for a negligently delivered death message. 66 Tex. 580, 18 S.W. 351 (1885); see also, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Buchanan, 129 S.W. 850 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1910, no writ). In Classen v. Benfer, the court of appeals allowed recovery for mental anguish damages after the mishandling of a corpse. 144 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism'd, jdgmt correct). These cases create an exception to the general rule. The nature of the torts assures that the claimants will suffer mental injury. There is no need to require proof of physical manifestation of the mental injury.
Our decisions allowing mental anguish recovery without proof of physical manifestation recognize that mental anguish inheres in the nature of certain torts, and therefore, proof of physical injury is not required. Thus, in Billings, we wrote:
damages for mental suffering are recoverable without the necessity of showing actual physical injury in a case of willful invasion of the right of privacy because the injury is essentially mental and subjective, not actual harm done to the plaintiffs body.
489 S.W.2d at 861. Similarly, in Fisher we applied the same rule because "personal indignity is the essence of an action for battery; and consequently the defendant is liable not only for contacts which do actual physical harm, but also for those which are offensive and insulting." 424 S.W.2d at 630. Each of these decisions rejected arguments that proof of physical injury should be required. This is because torts inherently involving mental anguish claims demand proof of mental anguish, not physical pain.
. Our question is whether the mental anguish already recognized as an element of wrongful death damages must be proved by physical manifestation. Moore and Theaker contend that a family relationship establishes some evidence of mental anguish in the surviving family members when one of the family dies. We agree.
This court has recognized that, in a wrongful death case, an emotional reaction on the part of a parent is a natural by-product of injury to the familial relationship. Sanchez, 651 S.W.2d at 252-53; Note, 15 St. Mary's L.J. 185, 194 (1983). All wrongful death actions are predicated on the proposition that a wrongful death necessarily destroys any pre-existing family relationship. In most death cases, the emotional impact of the loss of a beloved person "is the most significant damage suffered by surviving relatives." S. Speiser and S. Ma-lawer, An American Tragedy: Damages for Mental Anguish of Bereaved Relatives in Wrongful Death Actions, 51 Tulane L.Rev. 1, 17 (1976).
Wrongful death cases present another circumstance where the genuineness of a mental anguish claim obviates the physical manifestation requirement. Like the battery in Fisher and the willful invasion of privacy in Billings, the injury in a wrongful death case is largely emotional. The substance of the recovery sought is for emotional damage to the family unit and its surviving members rather than for physical injuries; thus, the proof should consist of evidence of mental anguish rather than of physical pain. We hold, in a wrongful death cause of action, it is no longer necessary to prove that mental anguish is physically manifested. A physical manifestation of mental anguish is evidence of the extent or nature of the mental anguish suffered, but it is no longer the only proof of mental anguish.
The physical manifestation rule has been expanded to include many symptoms. "Courts have gone to great lengths in order to find a physical injury." Comment, Texas Bystander Recovery: In the Aftermath of Sanchez v. Schindler, 35 Baylor L.Rev. 896, 901 (1983). All manner of symptoms have qualified as physical manifestations: nervousness, fatigue, weakened muscles, severe headaches, memory lapses, and "brain deterioration." Houston Electric Co. v. Dorsett, 145 Tex. 95, 194 S.W.2d 546 (1946). See also, e.g. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry Co. v. Hayter, 93 Tex. 239, 54 S.W. 944 (1900). Such a wide-ranging meaning has attached to "physical manifestation," that the term has lost much of its former significance; even "embarrassment" and "humiliation" have sufficed in other jurisdictions. See R. Byrd, Recovery for Mental Anguish in North Carolina, 58 N.C. L.Rev. 435, 456 (1980).
Up to now, identically situated plaintiffs in wrongful death actions would face different standards. The wrongful death survivors of a person killed by an ordinarily negligent tortfeasor had to prove physical manifestation to recover for mental anguish. This was true no matter how loving and closely-knit the family. However, the wrongful death survivors of a person killed by a grossly negligent tortfeasor could recover for mental anguish without proof of physical manifestation. This was true no matter how hateful or openly hostile the family members. Identically situated plaintiffs should face the same standard of proof.
Proof of Moore and Theaker's family relationship constitutes some evidence they suffered mental anguish from the wrongful death of their son. The evidence mandates submission of a damage issue on mental anguish. Tex.R.Civ.P. 277. The court of appeals held there was no evidence of mental anguish because there was no testimony concerning how Moore or Theaker learned of their son's death, whether they attended the funeral, or what effect the loss of a child had on their lives. However, we agree with the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit in Connell v. Steel Haulers, Inc., 455 F.2d 688 (8th Cir.1972). In interpreting Arkansas law, the court stated:
[w]e do not think that Arkansas law requires that parents of a deceased child necessarily make a public exhibition of their grief before or during trial.... We are not convinced that mental anguish necessarily manifests itself objectively to the world, nor do grief stricken parents need to offer evidence of physical symptoms such as sleeplessness, weight loss, nervousness, personality changes, and the like. Mental anguish represents a deep inner feeling of pain and hurt often borne in silence. We are satisfied from our reading of the Arkansas cases that parents, such as the Con-nells, are entitled to have the issue of mental anguish submitted to the jury on the basis of the emotional impact suggested by the circumstances surrounding their loss. We are convinced that assessment of the resulting grief is a task for which juries have traditionally been considered well-suited, and in which they can be properly expected to draw upon their own experience and empathy.
Id. at 691.
We next decide if there is some evidence to support submission of damage issues on loss of society and companionship. If there is some evidence to support Moore's and Theaker's requested issues, the trial court's refusal to submit them constitutes reversible error. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Thomas, 554 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.1977). We must search the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the loss of society and companionship issues. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.1965). We consider only the evidence and the inferences tending to support the issue and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id. at 823. We agree with the court of appeals there is some evidence to support submission of these issues.
Paul's parents were divorced. After the divorce, he lived with his father while attending high school. He accompanied his father to military duty stations in Europe. Moore testified that Paul "was always helping us in anything we had to do." Paul and his father confided in each other and talked about important decisions, including Paul's decision to attend college.
Paul joined the Army in 1977 and began basic training. He told his father he wanted to learn to be a paramedic. Paul wrote his father and stated, "Dad, I know this is what I want." Paul described his military training, and wrote, "I would really like for you to come to my basic graduation on May the 9th and make you proud." Paul concluded the letter, "Take care. With love, thinking of you, Paul."
Theaker testified that she and Paul competed together, and both won prizes, at National Rifle Association meets. She taught Paul to cook, and he was coopera-^ tive with household chores. Paul was remembered as "always a productive son." He lived with his mother the summer after returning from Europe and helped her with the cooking, the yardwork, and repairing the family car. Paul and his mother spent some summers together at a lake house in Michigan. Both enjoyed cooking together and exchanged recipes by mail.
We are mindful of the significant changes which have occurred in wrongful death law during our attempts to bring Texas into line with the majority of American jurisdictions. See Sanchez, 651 S.W.2d at 252-53 (a majority of states has abolished the pecuniary loss rule); Yowell v. Piper Aircraft, 703 S.W.2d at 630 (Tex.1986) ("substantial federal and state authority allows [recovery] for loss of inheritance"). Perhaps "the most serious obstacles to gaining a comprehensive understanding of wrongful death damages are posed by mere words." 3 M. Minzer, J. Nates, C. Kimball, D. Axelrod, R. Gold-stein, Damages in Tort Actions § 22.02 at 22-13 (1985) [hereinafter cited as, Minzer, Damages in Tort Actions ]. We agree that no analysis of the elements of damages can succeed without operationally defining the terms used. Accordingly, we adopt the following definitions to be used in distinguishing the elements of damage now allowed in wrongful death cases.
Pecuniary loss for the parent of an adult child is defined as the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that the parents would, in reasonable probability, have received from their child had the child lived. See 3 State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 81.05 (1970 & Supp.1984). The definition used will vary according to the class of beneficiary and decedent, e.g. spouse, parent, adult child or minor child.
Loss of inheritance damages have only recently been allowed in Texas wrongful death actions. Yowell v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 703 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.1986). In Yo-well, we defined loss of inheritance damages as the present value that the deceased, in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate and left at natural death to the statutory wrongful death beneficiaries but for the wrongful act causing the premature death. Id. at 633.
The definitions for mental anguish, and loss of society and companionship, present more difficulty. Some have suggested that these damages necessarily overlap. Both of these awards compensate non-economic losses while pecuniary loss and loss of inheritance damages represent direct economic losses. Mental anguish represents an emotional response to the wrongful death itself. Minzer, Damages in Tort Actions § 22.30 at 22-153. Loss of society, on the other hand, constitutes a loss of positive benefits which flowed to the family from the decedent's having been a part of it. Id. at 22-152. Mental anguish is concerned "not with the benefits [the beneficiaries] have lost, but with the issue of compensating them for their harrowing experience resulting from the death of a loved one." 1 S. Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death 2d § 3:52 at 327 (1975). Loss of society asks, "what positive benefits have been taken away from the beneficiaries by reason of the wrongful death?" Mental anguish damages ask about the negative side: "what deleterious effect has the death, as such, had upon the claimants?" Id. Mental anguish and loss of society and companionship are distinguishable. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 585-86 n. 17, 94 S.Ct. 806, 814-15 n. 17, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974); see also, Comment, 35 Baylor L.Rev. 882, 893 (1983); Minzer, Damages in Tort Actions § 22.30 at 22-152.
In the court's charge in wrongful death cases, mental anguish shall be defined as the emotional pain, torment, and suffering that the named plaintiff would, in reasonable probability, experience from the death of the family member. Companionship and society shall be defined as the positive benefits flowing from the love, comfort, companionship, and society the named plaintiff would, in reasonable probability, experience if the decedent lived.
In awarding damages for mental anguish and loss of society and companionship in a wrongful death case, the trier of fact shall be instructed that it may consider (1) the relationship between husband and wife, or a parent and child; (2) the living arrangements of the parties; (3) any absence of the deceased from the beneficiary for extended periods; (4) the harmony of family relations; and (5) common interests and activities.
The trier of fact should also be instructed that mental anguish and loss of society and companionship are separate elements of recovery. Damages should not overlap, and no double recovery should be allowed. The jury should be instructed: "in awarding damages for loss of society and companionship, if any, you should not consider the mental anguish, if any, caused by the death of [the deceased]." A corresponding instruction would be appropriate for the damage issues on mental anguish, loss of inheritance, and pecuniary loss.
The court of appeals erred in holding there is no evidence Moore and Theaker experienced mental anguish from the death of their son. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the trial court for a new trial.
SPEARS, J., joined by GONZALEZ, J., dissent.
. Some states have entirely done away with the physical injury requirement in a variety of tort contexts. Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 772 (Mo.1983) (en banc); Culbert v. Sampson's Supermarkets, Inc., 444 A.2d 433 (Me.1982); Barnhill v. Davis, 300 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1981); Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal.3d 916, 923, 616 P.2d 813, 817, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 835 (1980); Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979); Leong v. Takasaki, 55 Hawaii 398, 520 P.2d 758, 762 (1974); Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88, 417 A.2d 521, 526 (1980); Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 175 Conn. 337, 398 A.2d 1180, 1184 (1978); Taylor v. Baptist Medical Center, Inc., 400 So.2d 369, 374 (Ala.1981); Chappetta v. Bowman Transportation, Inc., 415 So.2d 1019, 1022-23 (La.Ct.App.1982).