Ayers v. Robinson, 92 C 7815.
Decision Date | 23 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 92 C 7815.,92 C 7815. |
Parties | Lillian AYERS, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lenardo Ayers, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Hugh ROBINSON, City of Chicago Police Department and Matt Rodriguez, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Elliot R. Zinger & Associates, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
Thomas Osran, Martha Barglow, Donald Zoufal, Corp. Counsel Office, Chicago, IL, for defendants.
At about 9 p.m. September 14, 1992 City of Chicago ("City") Police Officer Hugh Robinson ("Robinson") shot and killed Lenardo Ayers ("Lenardo") in the vicinity of 68th and Loomis Streets in Chicago. Lenardo's mother Lillian Ayers ("Lillian"), both individually and as special administrator of his estate, brings this action against Robinson, Chicago Police Chief Matt Rodriguez and City itself to recover money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various Illinois state laws.
At trial Lillian would hope to introduce into evidence expert testimony by Professor Stan Smith ("Smith") on the issue of hedonic damages. In Smith's book coauthored with Michael Brookshire (Economic/Hedonic Damages: The Practice Book for Plaintiff and Defense Attorneys (1990 with 1992/93 cum. supp.) ("Hedonic Damages")) the hedonic value of life is defined as "the value of the pleasure, the satisfaction, or the `utility' that human beings derive from life, separate and apart from the labor or earnings value of life" (id. 164). Hedonic Damages describes the concept as encompassing everything from the fleeting joy derived "from staring adoringly into an infant's smiling face" to the more deep-seated satisfactions involved in "enduring life's hardships" (id. 164). Smith claims to be able to put a dollar figure on those intangibles and, if allowed to do so, would testify that Lenardo's hedonic damages are approximately $2 million.
Defendants have moved to exclude that testimony under the principles set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and their motion is now fully briefed and ready for decision. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, defendants' motion is granted.
Lillian has not tendered any specific proffer as to the nature of Smith's anticipated testimony. But the principles and methodology upon which Smith relies — the so called "willingness-to-pay" approach to valuing human life (P.Mem. 7-15) — are reported in a number of articles in addition to Hedonic Damages 161-75: see, e.g., Lauraine Chestnut & Daniel Violette, The Relevance of Willingness-To-Pay Estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life in Determining Wrongful Death Awards, J. Forensic Econ. 3(3) 75 (1990); Andrew McClurg, It's a Wonderful Life: The Case for Hedonic Damages in Wrongful Death Cases, 66 Notre Dame L.Rev. 57 (1990); Ted Miller, Willingness to Pay Comes of Age: Will the System Survive?, 83 Nw.U.L.Rev. 876 (1989) and a number of articles authored or co-authored by Smith (Smith, Should Judges Allow Testimony About Hedonic Damages?, Chi.Daily L.Bull., July 15, 1991, at 2; Gary Magnarini & Smith, Hedonic Damages, Wis.Law., Feb. 1991, at 17-19 and 56-58; and Smith, Hedonic Damages in Wrongful Death Cases, A.B.A.J., Sept. 1, 1988, at 70-73). See also the reported cases in which Smith has previously sought to testify (e.g., Mercado v. Ahmed, 974 F.2d 863, 868-71 (7th Cir.1992) and Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee, 878 F.Supp. 147 (E.D.Wis.1995)). All of those materials supply ample basis for evaluation, for Daubert, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2797 has instructed:
The focus of the admissibility determination, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.
For current purposes the most useful explication of willingness-to-pay methodology is set forth in the sample testimony in Chapter 11 (pages 225-29) of Hedonic Damages and in the related section at pages 81-85 of its 1992/93 supplement. Those samples provide both a concise summary of the conceptual underpinnings of the economic model and an overview of the most recent empirical data. Hence that testimony will be used as a starting point, drawing upon the larger body of literature and Smith's own scholarship when necessary. Although Smith's coauthorship of Hedonic Damages leads this opinion to refer to that title throughout (rather than speaking of Smith alone), it is reasonable to treat the book's sample testimony as reflective of what Smith would offer if he were allowed to take the stand.
In the book's initial text the sample testimony deals with the damages to be awarded a 35-year-old white male named Jack Doe in a wrongful death action. Here is the testimony on hedonic damages, which follows testimony as to the economist's credentials and a calculation of economic loss ($605,795):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson By and Through Anderson/Couvillon v. Nebraska Dept. of Social Services
...to severe criticism from both courts and legal commentators. See, Mercado v. Ahmed, 974 F.2d 863 (7th Cir.1992); Ayers v. Robinson, 887 F.Supp. 1049 (N.D.Ill.1995); Hein v. Merck & Co., Inc., 868 F.Supp. 230 (M.D.Tenn.1994); Sullivan v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 862 F.Supp. 317 (D.Kan.1994); Livings......
-
Lewis v. Alfa Laval Separation, Inc.
...and Defense Attorneys in 1990 with Dr. Brookshire.2 See Kurncz v. Honda N. Am., Inc. (W.D.Mich.1996), 166 F.R.D. 386; Ayers v. Robinson (N.D.Ill.1995), 887 F.Supp. 1049; Sullivan v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (D.Kan.1994), 862 F.Supp. 317; Mercado v. Ahmed (N.D.Ill.1991), 756 F.Supp. 1097, affirmed in......
-
Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp.
...excluded Smith's hedonic damages expert testimony. (See Mercado v. Ahmed (7th Cir.1992) 974 F.2d 863, 868-871; Ayers v. Robinson (N.D.Ill.1995) 887 F.Supp. 1049, 1051-1066; Fetzer v. Wood (Ill.App.1991) 211 Ill.App.3d 70, 155 Ill.Dec. 626, 633-636, 569 N.E.2d 1237, 1244-1247; Longman v. All......
-
Smith v. Dorchester Real Estate, Inc.
...973 F.Supp. 752, 758 (E.D.Mich.1997); Kurncz v. Honda N. Am., Inc., 166 F.R.D. 386, 388–90 (W.D.Mich.1996); Ayers v. Robinson, 887 F.Supp. 1049, 1059–64 (N.D.Ill.1995); Sullivan v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 862 F.Supp. 317, 321 (D.Kan.1994); Mercado v. Ahmed, 756 F.Supp. 1097, 1103 (N.D.Ill.1991), a......
-
Experts
...386 (W.D. Mich. 1996) (finding hedonic damages testimony inadmissible under Daubert for the reasons articulated in Ayers v. Robinson , 887 F.Supp. 1049 (N.D. Ill. 1995)); 5. McGuire v. City of Santa Fe , 954 F.Supp. 230, 232-33 (D. N.M. 1996) (finding, under Daubert , hedonic damage testimo......
-
Table of Cases
...253 F. 3d 967 (7th Cir. 2001), §532 Avivvi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center , (2008) DAR 1609, §532 Ayers v. Robinson , 887 F. Supp. 1049, 1051-1066 (N.D. Ill 1995), §551.2.4 Azzano v. O ’ Malley-Clements 710 N. E. 2d 373, 126 Ohio App. 3d 368 (Ohio App. 1998), §541.6 a-634 a-635 tab......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...that have also excluded the expert’s hedonic damages testimony. Mercado v. Ahmed , 974 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1992); Ayers v. Robinson , 887 F. Supp. 1049, 1051-1066 (N.D. Ill 1995); Fetzer v. Wood , 211 Ill. App. 3d 70, 155 Ill. Dec. 626, 569 N.E. 2d 1237, 1244-1247 (1991); Longman v. Allstate......
-
Table of Cases
...253 F. 3d 967 (7th Cir. 2001), §532 Avivvi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center , (2008) DAR 1609, §532 Ayers v. Robinson , 887 F. Supp. 1049, 1051-1066 (N.D. Ill 1995), §551.2.4 Azzano v. O ’ Malley-Clements 710 N. E. 2d 373, 126 Ohio App. 3d 368 (Ohio App. 1998), §541.6 A-1 Qඎൺඅංൿඒංඇ ......