Blackburn v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., 15863.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 15863.,15863.
• Citation: 368 F.2d 345
• Parties: Louise BLACKBURN, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert A. Blackburn, Deceased, v. The AETNA FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

368 F.2d 345 (1966)

Louise BLACKBURN, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert A. Blackburn, Deceased, v. The AETNA FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellant.

No. 15863.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 17, 1966.

Decided November 15, 1966.

Thomas J. Reinstadtler, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Frederick N. Egler, Egler, McGregor & Reinstadtler, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Paul E. Moses, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Robert B. Ivory, Evans, Ivory & Evans, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

Albert A. Blackburn, while operating a tractor-trailer unit on October 17, 1963, was killed in a collision. Wrongful death and survival actions under the Pennsylvania statutes initiated by his widow resulted in a verdict of $80,000 in the former action and $22,000 in the latter. Motions for a new trial were denied by the Court and this appeal followed.

Liability is not disputed, nor is the correctness of the Court's charge upon the measure of damages. The only questions presented by this appeal have to do with the admissibility of evidence upon the damage issue and its sufficiency to support the verdict.

I

Under both the Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Act it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove two things — the probable future earnings of the deceased for the probable term of his life and what part of his earnings would have gone for his own maintenance and expenses. To prove probable earnings, the plaintiff's evidence showed that Blackburn was 57 years old at the time of his death. He was in good health, strong and active. For the greater part of his life, he had been an operator of a tractor-trailer unit either as owner of the equipment or as an employee driver.

The widow testified that when he owned his own truck he was in business as a "broker," an employment based on contracts or arrangements by which he leased or hired himself and his truck to companies engaged in freight transportation. He had worked in that type of employment until sometime in 1960 at which time the company which employed his services discontinued the broker system. He tried working independently for a time but found that he could not make a go of it, sold his truck, and took employment as a driver. At the time of his death, his pay for one year amounted to $6,732.00.

His wife, who had joined in and was familiar with his income tax returns and to whom he turned over all his pay checks, testified that when he was a broker his gross earnings were between $15,000 and $18,000 per year. The expenses of operating his business amounted to between $5,000 and $6,000, which would make his net some figure between $9,000 and $12,000.

The evidence as to what he did with his earnings came primarily from his widow. The deceased was a good husband and father and was devoted to the welfare and comfort of his family. He was industrious, a competent operator, and a person of steady, sober habits. The plaintiff summarized her testimony upon the point as follows: "* * * he always brought the check, gave it to me * * * Well I would say he didn't spend ten cents out of a dollar on himself; he took his money for expenses, which wasn't very much; I often wondered how he done it, but he never spent much money. Q. Where did the rest of the money go, for whose benefit? A. For our benefit, for the home and the children and me. Q. Was that just for a year or so that he was like that, or was that all through his life? A. It has been all through our married life."

Reading the plaintiff's testimony in connection with the entire evidence offered by her, it appears that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict upon both factors on which it was grounded, namely, the probable earnings of the deceased and the cost of his maintenance. Certainly, it lacked mathematical exactness and was far from precise or fully detailed, but under the law of Pennsylvania it is not essential that it should be.

"The law does not require that proof in support of claims for damages or in support of claims for compensation must conform to the standard of mathematical exactness * * * If the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating how much plaintiff is entitled to such evidence cannot be regarded as legally insufficient to support a claim for compensation." Smail v. Flock, 407 Pa. 148, 154, 180 A.2d 59, 62. "We have never held the damages that are not capable of exact ascertainment are for that reason not recoverable * * * Our law only requires that a reasonable quantity of information must be supplied by plaintiff so that the jury may fairly estimate the amount of damages from the evidence." Ashcraft v. C. G. Hussey and Co., 359...