Court Opinion

ID: 9868188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:17:01.395211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:46.846889
License: Public Domain

Former opinion, set aside and reversed January 12, 1915.
On Rehearing.
(145 Pac. 277.)
In Banc.
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
7. There are a great many assignments of error, but upon the rehearing only two were seriously pressed for the consideration of the court:
(1) That the trial court erred in giving instruction No. 11, which contains the following language:
“But you may consider as an element of damage the fact that he is deprived of the comfort, the society, the support, and of the protection of his father — those are elements which go with the pecuniary damages which he may have sustained.”
*238(2) That the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for a nonsuit.
In considering the language referred to in the instruction challenged, it is not necessary to go into any extended discussion of the question raised, for the reason that a recent case decided by this court (McFarland v. Oregon Electric Ry. Co., 70 Or. 27 (138 Pac. 458) has declared what we believe to be the correct doctrine, and sustained by the great weight of authority. In this case Mr. Justice Moore, in a well-considered and exhaustive opinion, concludes the matter in these words:
“Under a statute like Section 4 of the Employers’ Liability Act of Oregon [Laws 1911, p. 16], which creates a new cause of action, and does not revive a right, the rule is almost universal that the measure of the recovery in case of death is the pecuniary injury sustained, and that loss of society of the deceased does not constitute an element of the damages.”
Consequently the instruction as given was erroneous, and necessitates a reversal of the judgment.
This assignment of error was not referred to in appellant’s original brief, and was not seriously presented to the court until raised upon the petition for rehearing. It may also be worthy of note that the case of McFarland v. Oregon Electric Ry. Co., 70 Or. 27 (138 Pac. 458), was not decided by this court until after trial of the case at bar in the lower court.
Since the case must go back for a new trial, because of the error already discussed, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error. It may be remarked, however, that the -question as to whether or not the trial court should have granted defendants ’ motion for a nonsuit is a close one, but, as this is a matter that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, we *239are not prepared to say that upon another trial the evidence would be equally uncertain.
The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Former Opinion Set Aside.
Reversed. Rehearing Denied.