Opinion ID: 6328260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Death “Hedonic” Damages

Text: Post-death “hedonic” damages, which purport to compensate a victim for the lost pleasure he would have enjoyed from his life, can include injuries like the lost “ability to enjoy the occupation of your choice, activities of daily living, social leisure activities, and internal wellVALENZUELA V. CITY OF ANAHEIM 9 being,” 2 or the lost enjoyment of “going on a first date, reading, debating politics, the sense of taste, recreational activities, and family activities.” 3 California permits “hedonic” damages awards in tort cases where the victim survives. Huff v. Tracey, 57 Cal. App. 3d 939, 943 (Cal. 1976) (“California case law recognizes, as one component of general damage, physical impairment which limits the plaintiff’s capacity to share in the amenities of life . . . No California rule restricts a plaintiff’s attorney from arguing this element to a jury.”) (internal citations omitted). But it does not allow recovery for post-death “hedonic” damages. Garcia v. Superior Ct., 42 Cal. App. 4th 177, 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). But like the other limitations in its survival statute, California’s prohibition on post-death “hedonic” damages is not unique; all but five states prohibit them. 4 And the states that do allow them do so only by statutory enactment, not as a judge-made invention under the common law. 2 Schwartz, supra note 1, at 1038. 3 Id. at 1039 (citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 798 So. 2d 374, 381 (Miss. 2001)). 4 The five states are Arkansas (Durham v. Marbery, 356 Ark. 491 (Ark. 2004)), Connecticut (Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital, 183 Conn. 448 (Conn. 1981)), Hawaii (Ozaki v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay, 954 P.2d 652 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998)), New Hampshire (Marcotte v. Timberlane/Hampstead Sch. Dist., 143 N.H. 331 (N.H. 1999)), and New Mexico (Romero v. Byers, 117 N.M. 422 (N.M. 1994)). 10 VALENZUELA V. CITY OF ANAHEIM