Opinion ID: 1728323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: adequacy of verdict

Text: The estate also contends that the damage award was inadequate. This court has consistently recognized that a plaintiff in an action for wrongful death of a child may recover damages for loss of the deceased's society, comfort, and companionship which are shown by the evidence to have a pecuniary value. [15] The term society embraces a broad range of mutual benefits each family member receives from the other's continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection. [16] Parental loss is not limited to or necessarily dependent upon deprivation of the child's monetary contribution toward parental wellbeing. [17] However, damages on account of mental suffering or bereavement or as solace to the next of kin on account of the death are not recoverable. [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] With regard to the adequacy of a verdict, we have stated that `[i]t is virtually impossible to color match cases' to determine whether a verdict in a particular case was adequate. [21] One common thread runs throughout all wrongful death cases, namely, that damages in any wrongful death case are incapable of precise computation and are largely a matter for the jury. [22] In the present case, there is uncontroverted evidence of a close and loving relationship between Heather and her parents. The testimony presented at trial shows that Heather was a bright, considerate, dependable, and loving child who had a variety of interests both in and out of school. However, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the jury verdict was so inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. The jury was instructed, without objection, to consider the following factors when arriving at a verdict: (1) Any financial support, services, comfort or companionship that Heather Poppe gave to her parents before her death and the prospect that there would have been changes in the future; (2) the physical and mental health of Heather Poppe had she lived; (3) Heather Poppe's life expectancy immediately before her death; and (4) the life expectancy of Heather Poppe's parents. At the time of her death, Heather was 19 years old and had moved away from her parents in Kearney to attend school in Milford. Although Heather kept in contact with her family and came home to Kearney every weekend, the evidence reveals that Heather's time with her parents was limited and was becoming increasingly so as a result of the many activities in her life. The jury was also entitled to consider, in its determination of damages, the life expectancy of Heather's parents. A significant amount of testimony was presented at trial indicating that Arthur and Barbara each had a history of health problems that could affect their life expectancies. The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and the fact finder's decision will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by the evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages proved. [23] Given our standard of review and the record with which we are presented, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was adequate to support the award of $46,925.60, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the estate's motion for new trial.