Harkins v. Pullman Palace Car Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1892
• Citation: 52 F. 724
• Parties: HARKINS v. PULLMAN PALACE CAR CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

52 F. 724

HARKINS v. PULLMAN PALACE CAR CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Delaware.

November 14, 1892

George H. Bates, for the motion.

Levi C Bird, opposed.

WALES District Judge.

This was an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband, caused, it was alleged, by the negligence of the defendant. A trial was had at the present term, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $7,000. A motion is now made, on part of the defendant, for a new trial on the ground of excessive damages.

It is conceded that in cases of this character the principle on which damages are to be assessed is that of pecuniary injury and that no compensation can be given for the loss of comfort or companionship; and it is claimed, in support of the motion, that Mrs. Harkins, on the most liberal estimate would be fully compensated for the loss she has sustained by the payment to her of a sum of money which would yield an annual interest equal to the one half of her husband's yearly income at the time of his death. The deceased husband was an ordinary laborer, 30 years of age at the time of his death, and had been earning $1.35 per day, or at the rate of $400 a year. A person of his age, all other conditions being favorable, could purchase an annuity of $200 by the payment of the principal sum of $2,630, which latter sum, it is contended by defendant's counsel, should be the maximum damages to be allowed to the plaintiff. This basis of calculation is, however, much too narrow. The question for the jury was, what was the life of her husband worth to the plaintiff in a pecuniary point of view? And in answering that the jury were not necessarily confined to a calculation of the husband's wage-earning capacity only. The life of an honest, industrious, and kind-hearted husband and father exclusive of mere affection and sentiment, has for his wife a money value in addition to what he may be earning by his personal labor or business. We do not know on what principle the jury proceeded in making up their verdict. It is not charged that they were actuated by improper motives, the only reason urged for the motion being that the damages are excessive, whatever may have been the basis of calculation. Where this is the sole objection, the court must be clearly convinced that the sum awarded is grossly disproportioned to the loss sustained before granting a new trial; and, although, in out opinion, a...