Court Opinion

ID: 9691052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:05:55.759428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:09.732756
License: Public Domain

Wenke, J.,
dissenting.
I' disagree with that part of the majority opinion which holds the trial court was not in error when it failed to instruct the jury that damages for the loss of future earnings, if any, should be reduced to their present worth, no instruction to that effect having been requested by appellant-defendant. I would hold that its failure to do so was prejudicial error which requires a reversal and new trial.
Outside of Chambers v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 138 Neb. 490, 293 N. W. 338, I do not think the Nebraska cases cited in the majority opinion support the result therein reached in this respect. In fact it seems to me *30they support the rule announced in Borcherding v. Eklund, 156 Neb. 196, 55 N. W. 2d 643, which, on this question, overruled Chambers v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co.,. supra. In Borcherding v. Eklund, supra, we said: “A jury should be fully and fairly informed as to the various items of damages which it should take into consideration in arriving at its verdict. In this respect it is the duty of the trial court to instruct as to the proper basis upon which damages are to be assessed for each such item.” In Jacobsen v. Poland, 163 Neb. 590, 80 N. W. 2d 891, we clarified this by affirming what the trial court therein did in this respect, which was as follows: “The jury was advised by the court that any allowance made by it on account of impairment of the earning capacity of appellee should be the present value of the difference between the amount he would reasonably have been able and expected to earn if he had not been injured and the amount he is and will be able to earn because of his reduced capacity, if any, resulting from the injury he suffered.”
In Sweat v. Hines, 107 Neb. 1, 184 N. W. 927, and Sheean v. Hines, 107 Neb. 36, 184 N. W. 934, cited in the majority opinion, it is true that such an instruction was requested but the rule therein announced is stated in Sheean v. Hines, supra, as follows: “As was held in the Sweat case, this is one of the class of cases (actions brought under the federal employers’ liability act) in which, among other things, the proper measure of damages to be awarded for ascertained future earnings must, be settled according to general principles of law administered by the federal courts. The supreme court of the United States seem to have definitely decided that in such cases the sum to be awarded for the anticipated earnings of a decedent must be the present worth only of such earnings; that it is the duty of state courts to so< direct the jury; * * (Emphasis mine.) See, also, Culver v. Union P. R. R. Co., 112 Neb. 441, 199 N. W. 794.
As we said in Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines, 153*31Neb. 98, 43 N. W. 2d 609: “It is the duty of the trial court, without request, to submit to and properly instruct the jury upon all the material issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence. * * (Emphasis mine.) See, also, Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist. v. Armstrong, 159 Neb. 609, 68 N. W. 2d 200.
In cases of this character this court has always held that damages resulting from the loss of future earnings or wages can only be recovered to the extent of their present value. Borcherding v. Eklund, supra.
“It is always the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the proper basis upon which damages are to be estimated. The jury should be fully and fairly informed as to the various items or elements of damage which they should take into consideration in arriving at their verdict, otherwise the jury may be confused and misled.” Kroeger v. Safranek, 161 Neb. 182, 72 N. W. 2d 831. See, also, Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist. v. Armstrong, supra; Nelson v. Wiepen, 154 Neb. 458, 48 N. W. 2d 387. As stated in Nelson v. Wiepen, supra: “Where the issue is duly raised, the trial court may and should advise the jury that it may award damages for impaired earning capacity by an instruction in proper form and clearly stating applicable rules.”
I think the majority opinion, in view of these principles, creates an exception to the absolute duty of the trial court, without request, to instruct the jury on each issue presented by the pleadings which finds support in the evidence. I see no reason for doing so on this issue and think the majority is wrong in doing so.
As to similar holdings in other jurisdictions see Article III b 1 of the annotation on the “Duty to instruct, and effect of failure to instruct, jury as to reduction to present worth of damages for future loss on account of death or personal injury,” found in 77 A. L. R. at page 1453 and in 154 A. L. R. at page 803. See, also, 25 C. J. S., Damages, § 185 e (2), p. 895.
I think, where there is evidence adduced sufficient *32to submit the question of a recovery for the loss of future earnings or wages, if any, to a jury, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to properly inform the jury that if it allows any recovery therefor it can only be allowed to the extent of the present value thereof.
While it is, in my opinion, merely dicta there is another statement in the opinion that I believe is erroneous. Therein it is stated that: “We think it just as essential that the value of future pain and suffering be reduced to its present worth as it is that the value of loss or impairment of future earnings be reduced to its present worth.” I do not think the case of Kepler v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 111 Neb. 273, 196 N. W. 161, is any authority for this statement.
As to the recovery for future pain and suffering we said in Crecelius v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 144 Neb. 394, 13 N. W. 2d 627, that: “ * * The only future pain and suffering which the jury is entitled to consider is such as the evidence shows with reasonable certainty he will experience.’ (Burkamp v. Roberts Sanitary Dairy, 117 Neb. 60, 219 N. W. 805.)” See, also, Jacobsen v. Poland, supra.
In Culver v. Union P. R. R. Co., supra, we said: “Damages for pain and suffering are not to be awarded as upon the basis of present worth based upon the life expectancy of the plaintiff, but as a gross sum presently payable.” See, also, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Candler, 283 F. 881, 28 A. L. R. 1174.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.