Opinion ID: 427081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of Grandchildren's Consumption

Text: 33 Kenneth Marshall had lived with and supported Mary and her grandchildren, but appellee's counsel withdrew the grandchildren as plaintiffs prior to trial. Burlington argues that the amount Kenneth would have contributed to the support of the grandchildren should be deducted from his future earnings in computing Mary's damages, because she alone is entitled to recover for loss of comfort and the grandchildren should not recover indirectly. Though inventive, the argument has no merit. Mary was entitled to recover the portion of Kenneth's earnings that he would have contributed to her for her support, and it is irrelevant that she elected to use part of the money for her grandchildren. 34 As it was error for the district court to admit evidence regarding the effectiveness of oscillating lights and strobe lights as on-train warning devices, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. 35 REVERSED AND REMANDED.