Opinion ID: 1060766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: stare decisis and statutory construction

Text: The defendant urges this Court to decline revisiting the issue of the availability of consortium damages under Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 on the basis of stare decisis. Were we to rule upon precedent alone, were stability the only reason for our being, we would have no trouble with this case. . . . In so doing we would have vast support from the dusty books. But dust [from] the decision would remain in our mouths through the years ahead, a reproach to law and conscience alike. Our oath is to do justice, not to perpetuate error. Montgomery v. Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 101 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Mich.1960). The defendant asserts that any change to the meaning of Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 should be left to the legislature. The issue before us, however, involves a matter of statutory interpretation and not the implementation of public policy. Next, the defendant argues that the wrongful death statute is in derogation of the common law and, therefore, should be strictly construed. The defendant maintains that interpreting the wrongful death statute to permit recovery of parental consortium claims . . . would be to afford the statute a liberal construction. Issues of statutory construction are questions of law and shall be reviewed de novo without a presumption of correctness. Beare Co. v. Tennessee Dep't of Revenue, 858 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tenn.1993); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn.1993). Statutes in derogation of the common law are generally strictly construed. The rule requiring strict construction amounts to a recognition of a presumption against the legislature's intention to change existing law. Stem. v. Nashville Interurban Ry., 142 Tenn. 494, 221 S.W. 192, 195 (Tenn.1920). Remedial statutes, however, generally reflect a legislative intent to amend an area of the common law and shall be construed liberally. Id. This Court's role in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and to effectuate the legislature's intent. State v. Sliger, 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn.1993). Generally, legislative intent shall be derived from the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language when a statute's language is unambiguous. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993). When a statute's language is ambiguous and the parties legitimately derive different interpretations, we must look to the entire statutory scheme to ascertain the legislative intent. Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn.1995). The defendant argues that this Court has previously held that Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 is a survival statute and that survival statutes generally do not permit recovery under consortium theories. While this Court in Jones v. Black, 539 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn.1976), previously classified Tennessee's wrongful death statute as a survival statute for purposes of limitations of action, we are not confined to interpret the statute according to the strictures of a judicially imposed classification when such an interpretation would ignore unambiguous statutory language. Accordingly, our analysis of Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 shall focus on the statute's language and not on what damages survival statutes in other states generally permit. It must be remembered that, notwithstanding the accurate, technical characterization of Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 as survival legislation, the statute also provides for a cause of action that compensates survivors for their losses. Damages under our wrongful death statute can be delineated into two distinct classifications. Thrailkill v. Patterson, 879 S.W.2d 836 (Tenn.1994); Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S.W. 967 (Tenn.1903). The first classification permits recovery for injuries sustained by the deceased from the time of injury to the time of death. Damages under the first classification include medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, funeral expenses, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 (right to recover the mental and physical suffering, loss of time, and necessary expenses resulting to the deceased from the personal injuries). The second classification of damages permits recovery of incidental damages suffered by the decedent's next of kin. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-5-113 ( and also the damages resulting to the parties for whose use and benefit the right of action survives from the death consequent upon the injuries received.) (emphasis added); see also Thrailkill, 879 S.W.2d at 841; Davidson Benedict Co., 72 S.W. at 977. [8] Incidental damages have been judicially defined to include the pecuniary value of the decedent's life. Spencer v. A-1 Crane Serv., Inc., 880 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Tenn.1994). Pecuniary value has been judicially defined to include the expectancy of life, the age, condition of health and strength, capacity for labor and earning money through skill, any art, trade, profession and occupation or business, and personal habits as to sobriety and industry. Id. Pecuniary value also takes into account the decedent's probable living expenses had the decedent lived. Wallace v. Couch, 642 S.W.2d 141 (Tenn.1982); Hutton v. City of Savannah, 968 S.W.2d 808, 811-12 (Tenn.Ct. App.1997). The wrongful death statute neither explicitly precludes consortium damages nor reflects an intention to preclude consortium damages. The statute's language does not limit recovery to purely economic losses. To the contrary, the statute's plain language appears to encompass consortium damages. Indeed, this Court has recognized that pecuniary value cannot be defined to a mathematical certainty as such a definition would overlook the value of the [spouse's] personal interest in the affairs of the home and the economy incident to [the spouse's] services. Thrailkill, 879 S.W.2d at 841. We further believe that the pecuniary value of a human life is a compound of many elements. An individual family member has value to others as part of a functioning social and economic unit. This value necessarily includes the value of mutual society and protection, i.e, human companionship. Human companionship has a definite, substantial and ascertainable pecuniary value, and its loss forms a part of the value of the life we seek to ascertain. While uncertainties may arise in proof when defining the value of human companionship, the one committing the wrongful act causing the death of a human being should not be permitted to seek protection behind the uncertainties inherent in the very situation his wrongful act has created. Moreover, it seems illogical and absurd to believe that the legislature would intend the anomaly of permitting recovery of consortium losses when a spouse is injured and survives but not when the very same act causes a spouse's death. We are constrained to interpret statutes so that no part or phrase of a statute will be rendered inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant. Tidwell v. Collins, 522 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tenn.1975). Accordingly, we reverse Davidson Benedict v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S.W. 967 (Tenn.1902), to the extent that Davidson Benedict prohibits consideration of spousal consortium losses when calculating the pecuniary value of a deceased's life under the wrongful death statute. [9]