Court Opinion

ID: 9847879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:09:06.941723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:41.935301
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
While I am in accord with some of the opinion, I cannot agree with all the quotations from the cases cited nor with some of the statements of law and dictum therein.
During the consideration of this appeal it appeared there was, and now remains, a difference of opinion among the members of the court as to the propriety of part of Instruction No. 6. Although pertinent provisions of Instructions 6 and 8, which are hereby referred to, are quoted in different parts of Justice Doyle’s opinion, I believe it well to again set out portions of Instruction 6 and, as I read its grammar, Instruction 8 as follows:
6. “You may also consider what pecuniary loss, if any, plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer in the future with reasonable certainty, by being deprived of advice, assistance, comfort and protection of the child.” (emphasis supplied)
8. “You are instructed that in your assessment of Plaintiff’s damages, the law of this State does not permit you, and you must not, award plaintiffs any sum for the * * * loss of the comfort, society, protection and companionship which they may have suffered by reason of the death of Denise Anderson.” (emphasis supplied)
Defendant’s objection was to the use of the words “advice”, “protection” and “comfort” in Instruction No. 6 while in Instruction No. 8 the court advised the jury that no recovery could be allowed for “loss of the comfort” and “protection” used in Instruction 6 (as well as “society” and “companionship” not appearing therein). Defendant did not object to the apparent contradictions of Instructions 6 and 8 (although plaintiff did so).
*126In this state of the record defendant had a favorable instruction that advised the jury not to consider loss of comfort, society, protection and companionship in any award of damages, and it tempered, if it did not eliminate, the items complained of in Instruction 6. The only question remaining is whether the award was excessive. I conclude it was not. Advice and assistance may have pecuniary value, but I do not reach that under this record. That children may be liable for the support of their parents, SDCL 25-7-28 through 25-7-30, gives a basis to the use of the word “assistance”, and it may be said that such assistance and aid by children in later years has been and may in the future be of value. Experience has shown this to be true in some instances.
Our opinions in Rowe v. Richards, 32 S.D. 66, 142 N.W. 664, 57 L.R.A. 1915E 1069, and 35 S.D. 201, 151 N.W. 1001, 57 L.R.A. 1915E 1075, Ann.Cas.1918A, 294, contain the reasoning and observations of our court on this subject which is also discussed in the recent opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, Administratrix (1974), 414 U.S. 573, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9.
For the above reasons I concur in the result.