Opinion ID: 1807321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of mortality tables.

Text: Defendant objects to the fact that the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to introduce a mortality table identified as Document No. 140, American Jurisprudence Desk Book, page 345. Defendant contends that the mortality tables in the Wisconsin Statutes are the only evidence which should be allowed on this point. It does not contend that the American Jurisprudence tables are inaccurate. Instead, it contends that they are not properly authenticated and that there was no proper foundation laid for the American Jurisprudence tables because plaintiffs did not state the source of them. Defendant is technically correct herein that no source for these tables was given other than the American Jurisprudence Desk Book itself.  However, the tables are identical to mortality tables currently published by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and in Donlea v. Carpenter (1963), 21 Wis. 2d 390, 400, 401, 124 N. W. 2d 305, this court said: ... We see, however, no reason why a court should not take judicial notice of figures based on expectancies computed on the basis of current statistics and published by responsible government agencies and include such expectancies in instructions to the jury in a personal-injury action. (Emphasis supplied.) This court approved the use of American Jurisprudence annuity tables in Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co. (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 36, 168 N. W. 2d 112. Defendant does not state what the source for the statutory tables is, but the court noted that source in Donlea, supra, at page 400: ... The statutory table is based upon the experience of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York during the years 1843 to 1860.... In any case such tables are merely guidelines for the jury, and the difference between the two tables is so slight that the error, if any, was harmless. We also note that this is another point not preserved on motions after verdict.