Court Opinion

ID: 9656974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:09:51.749137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.333821
License: Public Domain

Colwell, D.J.,
Retired, dissenting.
I disagree with the majority on the issue of the amount of damages allowed by the jury for pecuniary loss; from the record the verdict for $250,000 was clearly wrong, being excessive, as it shocks the conscience. See Crewdson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 234 Neb. 631, 643, 452 N.W.2d 270, 280 (1990):
[A] verdict may be .set aside as excessive or inadequate when, and not unless, it is so excessive or inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. If a verdict shocks the conscience, it necessarily follows that the verdict was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record.
Concerning the $250,000 verdict, the court’s instruction No. 8 told the jury to reduce any damages allowed for loss of society, comfort, and companionship to their present cash value. There is nothing in the record showing how the jury followed that instruction.
The issue presented here is whether or not the $250,000 jury verdict was excessive as it relates to the pecuniary loss of Kari’s society, comfort, and companionship, or, simply, how much *363was that loss worth in money to the next of kin (parents). Such elements of loss are recoverable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-810 (Reissue 1989), which provides in part, “The verdict or judgment should be for the amount of damages which the persons in whose behalf the action is brought have sustained.” That statute does not require pecuniary loss; however, that element has been included by judicial interpretation. The statutory and judicial interpretation history of § 30-810 has been reviewed in such cases as Ensor v. Compton, 110 Neb. 522, 194 N.W. 458 (1923), Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973), Nelson v. Dolan, 230 Neb. 848, 434 N.W.2d 25 (1989), and other cases, including the provision in Gen. Stat. ch. 15, § 2 (1873), that recovery shall be limited to $5,000.
There are some definite limitations to the recovery for pecuniary loss in wrongful death cases.
Nothing can be allowed on account of mental suffering or bereavement or as a solace on account of such death. . . . [Rjecovery for loss of services and companionship by a surviving husband or wife can only be sustained where the evidence shows a reasonable probability that such services and companionship afforded the survivor was [sic] of such a character that it would be of advantage to such survivor, and that a disallowance thereof would cause a pecuniary loss to him or her.
Ensor v. Compton, supra at 524, 194 N.W. at 459. “This change . .. does not provide a wide open door to all sorts of claims for damages.” Id. “[A] wrongful death plaintiff may only recover for a pecuniary loss, meaning a loss which has a money value.” Maloney v. Kaminski, 220 Neb. 55, 69, 368 N.W.2d 447, 458 (1985); Garvin v. Coover, 202 Neb. 582, 276 N.W.2d 225 (1979). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1142(4) (Reissue 1989) provides that a new trial shall be granted if there are “excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.” (See the “shock the conscience” rule above-quoted in Crewdson.)
With the rule allowing recovery in wrongful death cases for pecuniary loss of society, comfort, and companionship for both minors (Selders) and adults (Garvin), the court has struggled in *364a search for some basis or guideline to consider and evaluate verdicts and judgments on the issue of whether they are excessive or inadequate. The court has said:
It is virtually impossible to “color match” cases in attempting to decide a given issue....
. . . [OJne common thread runs throughout all of those cases, namely, that damages in any wrongful death case are incapable of computation and are largely a matter for the jury.‘The amount to which a parent is entitled cannot be accurately determined because of the numerous contingencies involved. The amount being very problematical, it is peculiarly for the jury to determine, after hearing all the evidence bearing upon the situation, including the parent’s position in life, the physical and mental condition of the child, his surroundings and prospects, and any other matter that sheds light upon the subject. Members of juries generally have children of their own and have information as to the pecuniary value of children’s services and the expense involved in their care and education. A jury is peculiarly fitted to determine the loss sustained by a parent in such a case. At best, the verdict can only be an approximation as no yardstick exists by which the correct answer can be found with exactness.’...”
Garvin v. Coover, supra at 586-87, 276 N.W.2d at 227. Later, in Maloney, supra at 69, 368 N.W.2d at 458, the court stated that
the word “pecuniary” is not to be construed in a strict sense, that it is difficult to determine its exact measure, and that the task of determining such must be left to the good judgment and ordinary common sense of the jurors. The law does not provide any positive, definite mathematical formula or legal rule by which a jury shall fix the amount of pecuniary loss; it must be determined upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case.
From the foregoing, the conclusion is inescapable that in wrongful death cases such as the case at bar there are few clear rules or guidelines for the fact finder in arriving at a verdict/judgment which can be examined along with the record when challenged as either excessive or inadequate.
*365Likewise in such cases, there are few clear guidelines or rules for the appellate court to follow in order to carry out its duty to provide justice to all parties, including (1), unless the jury is clearly wrong, the reviewing court will not interfere with the jury verdict, Garvin v. Coover, supra; (2) a new trial shall be granted “for excessive or inadequate damages as to be the result of passion or prejudice,” see Crewdson and § 25-1142 (this seldom factually appears in the record); (3) damages for mental suffering, bereavement, or solace are not recoverable (here again, there is seldom clear evidence in the record supporting these items); and (4) a verdict or judgment shall not be sustained if it shocks the conscience (again, there is no uniformity or color-matching process to equate the record with conscience).
From a review of the cases, it is apparent no attempt has been made in Nebraska to achieve uniform assessment of pecuniary loss in wrongful death cases. In Garvin, supra, the court reviewed awards made in several prior cases and then affirmed a damages award of “none,” finding it was not inadequate. In Garvin the facts surrounding the life and death of the 20-year-old single decedent were similar to those in the case at bar. Later, in Crewdson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 234 Neb. 631, 452 N.W.2d 270 (1990), the court reversed and set aside a $510,000 verdict (as reduced to its present cash worth) as being excessive and shocking the conscience; the facts surrounding the life and death of the 21-year-old single male decedent were similar to those in the case at bar. From the foregoing, the most that can be deduced as to the issue of pecuniary loss is that “none” is acceptable and $510,000 is too much.
The dilemma presented to the court in these wrongful death cases, absent a clear showing in the record that the damages award is excessive or inadequate as the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or other means, is either for the court to approve the jury verdict on the theory that the assessment of pecuniary loss is for the jury to determine or, after examining the record, for the court to decide whether the verdict is excessive, as it shocks the conscience, for which decision there are no guidelines.
It is undisputed in the case at bar that the decedent, Kari L. *366Williams, age 24 years, prior to her death was a bright, considerate, dependable, and loving adult child who was devoted to her parents, William and Shirley Williams, and to her siblings; that her family regularly enjoyed Kari’s companionship; and that her family was rightfully proud of Kari’s industry and accomplishments. Kari had lived outside of the family home for about 1 year, and she intended to be married in the near future, when she would establish her own marital home and future. Her family had hoped and expected that their family relationships would continue.
From this record, the majority apparently relied upon the sound discretion of the jury to compensate for the loss caused by Kari’s death by evaluating the future with the past, and the award of $250,000 was not found to be excessive, on the conclusion that the verdict was not a result of passion, prejudice, or mistake.
The majority’s conclusion on this issue is a further erosion of the element of pecuniary loss in wrongful death cases and the rule, “A wrongful death plaintiff may only recover for a pecuniary loss, meaning a loss which has a money value.” See Maloney v. Kaminski, 220 Neb. 55, 368 N.W.2d 447 (1985). It brings into focus the dissent of Chief Justice White in Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973), challenging the rule in that case extending the recovery in the wrongful death of a child to include loss of society, comfort, and companionship of the child. Chief Justice White argued that the rule permitted recovery for emotional reasons:
In the hands of an imaginative lawyer, marshaling family albums and the testimony of sympathetic friends, and demonstratively organized and staged by a histrionic-minded lawyer, this court will undoubtedly be faced in the future with the almost impossible job of attempting to apply the generalized principles of excessiveness of a verdict to these judgments, which by their nature are an attempt to award money for a purely emotional loss conjectural, speculative in nature, and incapable of measurement or proof by any objective standard or related criteria.
Id. at 282, 207 N.W.2d at 690.
*367From my review of the record, the jury verdict of $250,000 for pecuniary loss was clearly wrong, being excessive, as it shocks the conscience, and, accordingly, it was the result of either passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent from the record. The verdict should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on plaintiff’s second cause of action on the issue of damages for pecuniary loss suffered by decedent’s next of kin. See Crewdson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., supra.
Lastly, I object to these majority citations as being contrary to existing Nebraska law: (1) “When children are wrongfully killed, the parents’ investment of money and in affection, guidance, security and love is destroyed. Society recognizes the destruction of that value, whether the child is a minor or an adult.” Ballweg v. City of Springfield, 114 Ill. 2d 107, 120, 499 N.E.2d 1373, 1379 (1986). That language in the Illinois case was in support of the rule that under its wrongful death act, “there is a presumption of loss of society for an adult child.” Id. Nebraska has no such presumption; rather, pecuniary loss is a fact question for the jury. (2) Although Nebraska recognizes the loss of society, comfort, and companionship of a deceased adult child as an element of damage, see Garvin v. Coover, 202 Neb. 582, 276 N.W.2d 225 (1979), the majority attempts to extend and define this element by quoting from 1 S. Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death § 3:49 at 321 (2d ed. 1975): “[T]he society, care and attention of a deceased [family member] are ‘services’ having financial value which may be both measured and compensated.” (Emphasis supplied.) That rule is not in accord with Nebraska law.