Opinion ID: 1351628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: loss of society

Text: We turn first to JoAnn's argument that the award of $5,000 on the wrongful death claim, as damages for loss of society, was clearly wrong. This court has consistently recognized that in an action for wrongful death of a child, recoverable damages include parental loss of the child's society, comfort, and companionship. Brandon II, citing Reiser v. Coburn, 255 Neb. 655, 587 N.W.2d 336 (1998). The term society embraces a broad range of mutual benefits each family member receives from the others' continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection. Brandon II. When a child is wrongfully killed, a parent's investment in that child of money, affection, guidance, security, and love is destroyed. Id., citing Reiser, supra . Destruction of such value is recognized whether the child is a minor or an adult. Id. Parental loss is not limited to or necessarily dependent upon deprivation of the child's monetary contribution toward parental well-being. Id. Damages for loss of society must be determined upon a consideration of the facts of each case. Id. There is no exact fiscal formula for determination of damages recoverable for loss of society, comfort, and companionship, a loss which is not subject to some strict accounting method based on monetary contributions, past or prospective. Id. Because it is impossible to generalize the extent to which persons enjoy each other's companionship and society, the value of such highly personal relationships must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Brandon II. Because the parent-child relationship has intrinsic value, once a parent-child relationship is proved to exist, destruction of that relationship through the wrongful death of the child entitles the parent, who is the surviving next-of-kin, to damages. Id., citing Reiser, supra . Evidence regarding the quality and extent of the parent-child relationship may then be utilized in determining the amount of those damages. Id. In reversing the district court's first award of nominal damages, we stated in Brandon II, 261 Neb. at 665-66, 624 N.W.2d at 626: JoAnn testified that she had a close relationship with Brandon. [Brandon's sister, Tammy] Schweitzer testified that she and Brandon had a close relationship with JoAnn because we had nobody but each other. Brayman, Brandon's aunt, testified that Brandon loved her mom dearly and she let her mother know that she loved her. Brandon spent every Christmas with her family. Although JoAnn often didn't know what to say when Brandon began experiencing her sexual identity crisis, JoAnn and Brandon did discuss the issue. JoAnn also attended counseling with Brandon. Even after Brandon began presenting herself as a man, Brandon would call JoAnn, stop by to see her, or leave a rose in the door for her. Brandon spoke to JoAnn nearly every day on the telephone after the rapes occurred. Brandon was interested in becoming a commercial artist, and Brandon told JoAnn that she wanted to come back to Lincoln and get her life back. The record in the present case shows that a relationship between JoAnn and Brandon did indeed exist. The county does not assert that there was no relationship between JoAnn and Brandon. The county asserts that the award of nominal damages was reasonable because JoAnn's relationship with Brandon was strained and undeveloped due to Brandon's legal troubles and gender identity disorder. Brief for appellee at 23. However, Brandon's personal problems are relevant only to the extent that they impacted her relationship with JoAnn. Damages for loss of society are not necessarily dependent on the personal qualities of the child. We have previously recognized that [w]e will not enter into a discussion in which we compare the relative accomplishments of deceased children in wrongful death actions. Caradori v. Fitch, 200 Neb. 186, 194, 263 N.W.2d 649, 655 (1978). See, also, Brahatcek v. Millard School District, 202 Neb. 86, 273 N.W.2d 680 (1979). The county's argument addresses the extent and quality of the relationship between JoAnn and Brandon, not whether such relationship existed. Contrary to the county's assertion, the parent-child relationship has intrinsic value, even if that relationship is less than perfect. A parent-child relationship may exist in spite of any personal problems the child might have, as the record in this case demonstrates. In recognizing the intrinsic value of the relationship between parent and child, as we did in Reiser v. Coburn, 255 Neb. 655, 664, 587 N.W.2d 336, 342 (1998), we conclude that an award of $0 for the loss of Brandon's society, comfort, and companionship sustained by JoAnn as a result of Brandon's death bears no reasonable relationship to the evidence and shocks the conscience. The award of $0 on JoAnn's loss of society claim is therefore inadequate as a matter of law. After remand, the district court attempted to calculate the intrinsic value of Brandon's relationship with her family. The district court acknowledged the facts set forth above and our holding in Brandon II. The district court relied on evidence that, according to the district court, demonstrated that while a parent-child relationship might have existed, [n]o real society existed and there is no evidence or reason to believe in its future development. The district court noted testimony indicating that Brandon had been sexually abused by an uncle starting when Brandon was about 6 or 7 years of age and continuing until Brandon was 14. The district court also noted that JoAnn later became aware of the sexual abuse, but nonetheless testified that Brandon had a happy childhood. The district court contrasted Schweitzer's testimony that she and Brandon were open with [their] mother and `[t]here was always honesty and trust between the three of us,' with Schweitzer's admission that she had been sexually abused by the same uncle and that she had witnessed Brandon being sexually abused, but that Schweitzer and Brandon agreed not to say anything about it. The district court also noted that while Brandon was afraid of Nissen and Lotter, [t]here is plenty of evidence that [Brandon] chose not to go home in the face of her fear and danger. Brandon thought it would be safer to stay with Lambert than to return home. The district court observed that although Brandon had been raped on Christmas Eve, Brandon did not go to her family on Christmas Day, nor did any members of Brandon's family go to her. The district court generally found that prior to the rape, the relationship between Brandon and the members of her family had become strained and distrustful and that Brandon had isolated herself from her family. Given our standard of review and the record with which we are presented, further recitation of which would serve no useful purpose, we cannot say the district court's determination of damages for loss of society was clearly wrong. An award of damages may be set aside as inadequate when, and not unless, it is so inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. See Holden v. Wal-Mart Stores, 259 Neb. 78, 608 N.W.2d 187 (2000). If an award of damages shocks the conscience, it necessarily follows that the award was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. Id. On appeal, we give the fact finder's determination of damages great deference. Norman v. Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist., 259 Neb. 184, 609 N.W.2d 338 (2000). While the district court concluded, as it was required to do, that the parent-child relationship in this case had intrinsic value, the district court examined the record and concluded that the objective evidence of `love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection' in that relationship did not necessarily match the testimony in that regard. See Reiser v. Coburn, 255 Neb. 655, 662, 587 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1998). While this does not mean that there is no relationship for which compensation can be awarded, see Brandon II, it is certainly relevant to the amount of damages to be awarded, particularly given the lack of an `exact fiscal formula for determination of damages recoverable for loss of society, comfort, and companionship.' Reiser, 255 Neb. at 663, 587 N.W.2d at 341. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trier of fact in this case made a determination that is supported by competent evidence and is not clearly wrong.