Court Opinion

ID: 9855090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:19:21.364858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.076805
License: Public Domain

LARSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I believe the verdict here unreasonable. Unreasonable verdicts may not stand. The size of this verdict and the rulings upon evidentiary matters by the trial court, as well as the court’s instructions, make necessary a review of the generally-adopted rules found necessary to control the size of the jury verdict. In some jurisdictions the legislature by statute has limited the *669size of the verdicts in the public interest, and in others the courts have adopted various devices for controlling their size. DeMoss v. Walker, 242 Iowa 911, 915, 48 N.W.2d 811, 813. This control has been accomplished primarily by developing the so-called “law of damages,” but is more accurately named “principles governing the recovery of damages.” 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages, § 22. Therein it is stated: “These principles, often stated in terms of rules,, are used during the trial to control the admission of evidence and, later, to charge the jury with the framework within which it must award damages. These principles are also used by the reviewing court to keep the actual damage awards within the bounds of reasonableness.” As bearing thereon, see Johnson v. Scott, 258 Iowa 1267, 1271, 142 N.W.2d 460, 463, and 33 Missouri Law Review 462, 464.
Prior to the amendment to section 613.15 by the 61st General Assembly we had limited by such rules the measure of damages for the wrongful death of a man to the loss to his estate. The legislature by this amendment did not attempt to alter these rules and, of course, did not place limits upon the recovery. To liberalize or abandon our control of admissible evidence and care in giving proper instructions would in most every case result in awards outside the bounds of reasonableness.
In Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc., 260 Iowa 556, 563, 149 N.W.2d 789, 793, we touched on this matter, pointing out in construing the legislative intent of the last amendment, Chapter 427, Laws of the 61st General Assembly, we consider the evil sought to be remedied and the object and purpose to be obtained by it. Here the right to recover for loss of services and support of the father as well as the mother was provided, and no attempt was made to change our rules of damages relating to such services.
In the past we have considered services of a mother and wife and have allowed only evidence of supporting contributions, not the value of services of the mother to the family, saying: “The best that can be done is to prove the facts and circumstances of the woman’s life and service in these capacities, her age, health and strength, her expectancy of life, and all that may appear to enlighten the minds and aid the judgment of the jurors. * * *.” Bridenstine v. Iowa City Elec. R. Co., 181 Iowa 1124, 1134, 165 N.W. 435, 439. It was there pointed out that “it would seem almost frivolous to call witnesses to estimate their (the services), monetary value.” The same logic must now be applied to the services of a father in the home as distinguished from evidence of support. Both a good father and a good mother render invaluable services to the family which cannot be the subject of monetary fixation by comparisons and expert opinion. The jury, armed with the facts as to health, services rendered in the home, and the obligations assumed by the parent, is itself the valuation expert as to the damage suffered in such a loss.
I believe this court should not relax its rules of evidence to the extent done here, and I concur in Judge STUART’S dissent in this regard.
If such verdicts are allowed to stand, there will be no clear judicial control over such damages in Iowa and it will require positive legislation to limit their size. I do not think the court now has any sound basis upon which to justify such a radical change of our past “law of damages” regarding such matters. To affirm this case will result in many unreasonable verdicts, high cost of insurance, and no judicial control of such litigation, vital to the public interest.