Court Opinion

ID: 9762009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:07:34.177565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.140089
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Robeets :
I am unable to join the majority’s opinion which requires the proceeds of a wrongful death action to be distributed equally between appellant, who suffered a loss of $87,000, and one who suffered a loss of only $4,000. Therefore, I must dissent.
While conceding the “logical consistency” and “compelling” reasoning of appellant’s argument the majority nevertheless concludes that appellant is not entitled to recover the actual pecuniary loss suffered as a result of decedent’s death. Rather, the majority holds that a literal interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act1 requires that appellant share the proceeds equally with the decedent’s daughter by a previous marriaga
In construing the Wrongful Death Act this “[C]ourt is faced with two clear alternatives. Either the provisions of the Wrongful Death Act must be strictly followed and a distribution made under the Intestate Act, without regard to possible windfalls, or the act must be interpreted so as to prevent an inequitable benefit to particular individuals.” 3 Goodrich*525Amram, Standard Pennsylvania Practice §2201-31 at 184 (Supp. 1972). The majority selects the former approach and thus approves the conceded inequitable result.
As early as 1882, however, this Court specifically rejected a literal interpretation of the act which yielded a “preposterous” result. In Lehigh Iron Co. v. Rupp, 100 Pa. 95 (1882), the Court said: “When a husband or wife recovers damages, and there are children of the deceased, the provision of the statute for distribution under the intestate law applies, and strictly accords with the main object of the statute, which is a remedy for the loss to the family. The surviving members of the family are recompensed in damages for the deprivation. But if the parents take equally with the widow the main object of the statute is in part defeated. Besides, in some cases the parents would share with her, when if the deceased had not been married, they would have no right at all. In such case as the present, by sharing with the widow they take half what the loss was to her, when if their son had been single, they would only be entitled to the value of his services for less than two years. Results so preposterous are not within the intendment of the statute.” Id. at 99 (emphasis added).
In Lewis v. Hunlock’s Greek & Muhlenburg, 203 Pa. 511, 53 Atl. 349 (1902), this Court again rejected a “too literal an application” of the concluding clause of the act which provides that “the sum recovered shall go to them in the proportion they would take in his or her personal estate in case of intestacy.”2 Appellants in Lewis were children of the decedent who would take in his estate in case of intestacy. They argued that they were entitled to share in the proceeds awarded to the decedent’s widow in the wrongful death action. The *526Court, however, held that, since the children were not injured as a result of the death, they could not recover.
“The appellants having no right of action in themselves, acquired none from the right of the widow. It would be absurd to say that if the father had been a widower, appellants would have had no claim, but if he had married the day before his death, they would have become entitled to two thirds of what the widow might recover in her own right under the statute.” Id. at 515, 53 Atl. at 350 (emphasis added).
The result here is equally “absurd” and “preposterous”, for the appellant, who suffered an economic loss twenty times greater than that of the daughter, is required to share equally in the proceeds. As Judge Hoffman noted in his dissenting opinion: “Allowing the minor child to share in the widow’s loss in the instant case is equally absurd. The child lives with its mother who is the deceased’s first wife and has no relation to the widow of the deceased. No interest in family harmony therefore dictates that compensation for the pecuniary loss to the widow should accrue to the child. Accordingly, the distribution ordered by the lower court violates the very clear expressions of policy and purpose in both the Lehigh and Lewis cases.” Seymour v. Rossman, 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 92, 101, 283 A. 2d 495, 499 (Hoffman, J., dissenting opinion).
I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and reinstate the original decree of distribution which distributed the proceeds according to the actual loss suffered.
Mr. Justice Pomeeoy joins in this dissenting opinion.

 id.