Court Opinion

ID: 9631925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:55:44.154363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:30.190959
License: Public Domain

BLACKBIRD, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority opinion.
The parties recognize that, in Oklahoma, no recovery can be had for loss of companionship and “consortium” — that damages in death actions are limited to actual “pecuniary loss.” Legal liability was admitted, and the only issue tried to the jury was the amount of damages. The verdict and judgment thereon was in the amount of $62,000 for the wrongful death, plus decedent’s funeral expenses.
The majority opinion, according to my view, does not rest on a sound foundation. Said opinion admits that the only evidence as to the value of the loss plaintiffs suffered, was that estimated by the witness, Mrs. Pierce, in answer to the following hypothetical question:
“Assume that a 7 year old girl of average or a little above average mentality has lost her mother through death and that she is going to public school and that her father works and is away from home during the work week and that, because of a skin allergy the girl has to have special attention for her baths and that she has to be bathed more than once a day or as often as is required, and assume further that the child is under a doctor’s care because of the skin allergy and the medications are both internally and external*827ly and are of a type that an ordinary person could administer and they have to be administered from time to time by the person caring for the child, and assume further that the child lives in a home of four or five rooms in the west edge of Oklahoma City which is modern, and assume the person caring for the child would have to keep the home for the child and prepare the meals and take car of her during the school term and prepare meals for the child during the summer vacation, during the period of time that the child is out of school, and assume further that the person taking care of her would take the personal care demanded and do all of the other things which I have mentioned, what would be the normal ordinary charge for such a person performing such duties?
* * * * *
“A. If I were called on to send a nurse out there, I couldn’t possibly get one for less than $300 a month.”
The answer is confined to a 7-year-old child, and the value of the services outlined is not less than $300 per month. I have examined the record, and I do not find any other evidence fixing the value of plaintiffs’ loss — nor does the majority opinion cite any. So, we have the value fixed at not less than $300 per month, or $3,600 per year.
The next thing to determine is how many years will such services be necessary. The testimony given by Dr. B., who had been treating Judy Kathleen, was: “A few more years is as near as I can get to it”, and in answer to the question: “Would you say it ordinarily would clear up by the time of puberty?”; he testified: “It has been known to do so.” The number of years this child’s ■condition will continue is indefinite.
The majority opinion sustains the judgment on the theory that the medical testimony (above-quoted) concerning Judy’s ailment is amply sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation that the deceased would have continued her services and attention beyond the child’s majority. I find no sound basis for this statement. The majority opinion says, in sustaining the verdict and judgment, that it is “simple mathematical calculation” that the life-expectancy was 38.61, and that the judgment was an award of some $1,605 per annum for. the expected remainder of decedent’s life. I find no authority sustaining this line of argument. It is clear to me that the majority opinion borders on pure speculation. In this state of the record, the only evidence we have as to the length of time Judy’s allergy will remain, and require treatment, is “A few more years.” Notwithstanding this, and, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allergy will continue until Judy’s majority, there would be a period of only 11 years in which she would need an attendant or caretaker able to render services worth “not less than $300.00 per month”, or $3,600 a year. Eleven times $3,600 would be $39,600, which, with the funeral expenses of $893.82, would make a total of $40,493.82.
As to the pecuniary loss suffered by the husband, I find no evidence fixing the value of services allegedly performed by the deceased, other than that above discussed. No doubt, he did suffer damage, hut in arriving at the amount we must have evidence as a basis.
The majority opinion says “at first blush” it would seem there should be some evidence of pecuniary value of such services, and, indeed that is so, but says, where the type of service is not of a specialized character and is within the common knowledge of the average man who is also cognizant of what the services are worth, the requirements are relaxed. This is true, hut 'an examination of the record will disclose that such a rule is inapplicable in this case. Also an examination of the cases cited, I am sure, will discourage this theory. The majority opinion cites the case of Anderson v. Christburgh, 176 Okl. 300, 55 P.2d 65, wherein the court awarded $25 per month for care and custody of each child. This amount was supported by testimony and is not in point here. The opinion further stresses the measure to be used in such *828evaluation, which is referred to by the legal phrase of “quantum meruit.” This rule surely is not applicable.
In arriving at the amount above suggested, there is some speculation. But, giving the evidence a most liberal interpretation, I believe a judgment in that sum should be sustained, and that the plaintiffs should remit the difference, or the judgment be reversed for a new trial.
I am authorized to announce that HALLEY, J., concurs in these views.