Court Opinion

ID: 9698764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:59:36.917104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:03.842682
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and in all of the court’s opinion except the part relating to growth in past net worth of ISC. The court holds that evidence as to future net worth of ISC was inadmissible. In my view evi-*206denee as to past net worth was also inadmissible, for want of foundation evidence at the trial.
The measure of damages is the present value of the estate the decedent would reasonably be expected to have accumulated as a result of his own efforts. Haumersen v. Ford Motor Co., 257 N.W.2d 7, 16 (Iowa 1977). As bearing on what Hauser would probably have accumulated as a result of his own efforts, plaintiff showed inter alia the salary Hauser received. But Hauser’s own efforts also contributed to the growth of ISC, a closely-held business in which he was a major stockholder. Plaintiff therefore also took ISC into account; it applied the net worth method to ISC to show additional amounts Hauser would probably have accumulated as a result of ISC growth. As to past growth, plaintiff showed that ISC originally was worth $36,000 and that twenty-four years later, at Hauser’s death, it was worth $255,000.
I think a plaintiff can show past growth in the net worth of a business such as ISC, provided the plaintiff introduces foundation evidence which factors out growth resulting from forces other than the decedent’s own efforts. The foundation evidence would not be necessary where the closely-held business had little capital and employed only the individual who is killed. But the necessity for the foundation evidence is more evident where the closely-held business has large capitalization and numerous employees. There the net-worth growth of the business may have been attributable in substantial part to factors other than the decedent’s own efforts.
ISC employed substantial capital, which probably contributed to earnings and therefore to growth. Part of the capital was in physical assets, and ISC probably also enjoyed unearned increment in those assets as a result of rising property prices over the twenty-four year period. ISC also had several employees beside Hauser and probably generated income from an override on charges for their services. Undoubtedly Hauser’s own efforts contributed to the growth of ISC, but undoubtedly also other factors played a part. In addition, the growth in ISC from Hauser’s efforts would only be relevant on the economic value of his life to the extent of his percentage of ownership; the jury’s ultimate concern was the value of Hauser’s life, not the value of ISC per se.
A plaintiff in a death case who desires to show the past net-worth growth of a business such as ISC should be required to show also the portion of the growth which was attributable to the decedent’s own efforts by introducing evidence which factors out other causes or enables the jury to factor them out. Plaintiff did not introduce such evidence here; the jury was left at sea. I disagree, therefore, with the court’s holding that past growth of ISC was admissible on this record. See generally, on this subject, Featherly v. Continental Insurance Co., 73 Wis.2d 273, 281, 243 N.W.2d 806, 812 (1976) (foundation must be “sufficient to make it possible for the jury to distinguish the portion of the business income attributable to the plaintiff’s personal capacity from that portion of the income attributable to capital investment and the labor of others”); Pumpelly v. Reeves, 273 Or. 808, 813, 543 P.2d 682, 685 (1975); 16 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts § 29, at 794, 808 (1965); 45 A.L.R.3d 345, 357-58 (1972).
I would hold the evidence of past net-worth growth of ISC was inadmissible on this record.