Opinion ID: 1716776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cause of action for wrongful death.

Text: The trial court incorrectly sustained the defendants' demurrer to the wrongful death cause of action on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [1] The trial court did not specify in its opinion the particular defects in the complaint. The defendants now argue on appeal that this complaint is fatally defective because it does not allege that the deceased minor was capable of work or gainful employment and, therefore, fails to allege a factual basis for pecuniary injury to the parents. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are as follows: 1. That the above named plaintiffs, A. J. McKissick and Lois McKissick, reside at 7001 North 100th Street, in the city and county of Milwaukee, state of Wisconsin, and were, prior to the death of Clifford McKissick, the parents of said Clifford McKissick, who died on August 2, 1967, a minor of the age of eighteen (18) years and who resided with his parents in the city and county of Milwaukee, state of Wisconsin. That the plaintiffs, individually and A. J. McKissick, as special administrator of the estate of Clifford McKissick, are lineal heirs of the said Clifford McKissick and are the proper parties to bring the wrongful death action pursuant to Section 895.04 Wisconsin Statutes, the said Clifford McKissick being a single man at the date of his death and not having any children. . . . 7. That as a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of negligence on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs have sustained the following damages: a. Pecuniary injury as a result of the death of said Clifford McKissick by reason of the loss of future support from said Clifford McKissick for themselves . . . . In our consideration of whether the allegations are sufficient to support a claim of pecuniary injury we are governed, of course, by two rules: (1) Secs. 263.07 and 263.27, Stats., require that, in case of a demurrer to a complaint, the complaint shall be liberally construed by the court, with a view to achieving substantial justice between the parties; and (2) a plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the facts pleaded. [2] At this stage of the proceedings, where we consider the allegations of the complaint and not what the proof will be at trial, it certainly can be reasonbly inferred from all the facts alleged, especially the fact that the parents would lose future support, that the deceased was capable of work and gainful employment. In challenging the complaint on this cause of action, the defendants rely upon the 1881 case of Regan v. The Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Ry. [3] for the proposition that an allegation of ability to contribute to the survivors' support is essential and cannot be presumed. However, Regan can be distinguished in that there the plaintiffs alleged only survivorship and damages. There was no mention of the age or living conditions of the deceased, nor any allegation that the survivors would lose future support, as there is in this case. In addition, the result in Regan was termed rather severe in the later case of Luessen v. Oshkosh, Electric Light & Power Co., [4] and the court decided that it should not be extended beyond its particular facts. The defendants also argue that the Luessen Case requires an allegation that the deceased minor was able to work or be gainfully employed. Yet in Luessen the court adverted to the allegation of ability to work in holding the complaint sufficient only because there was no allegation that the father intended to rely upon the deceased minor for future support. In this case, where there is a specific allegation of loss of future support, it is not necessary to search for a further allegation of ability to work. It should also be noted here that, quite irrespective of the question of pecuniary injury, the plaintiffs have alleged damages for loss of society and companionship and funeral expenses. The wrongful death statute allows these claims apart from any claim for pecuniary injury. [5] There is no question that the complaint is sufficient in regard to these claims.