Scheffler v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1884
• Citation: 32 Minn. 518
• Parties: ANTON SCHEFFLER, Administrator, <I>vs.</I> MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 518

32 Minn. 518

ANTON SCHEFFLER, Administrator,vs.

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 8, 1884.

Plaintiff, the father and administrator of Anton Scheffler, a child 18 months old, brought this action (under Gen. St. 1878, c. 77, § 2) to recover $5,000 damages sustained by the next of kin of the intestate, in consequence of his death, which was caused, as alleged in the complaint, by the defendant's negligence. A former action by the same plaintiff for his damages by reason of the loss of his child's services is reported supra, p. 125. The complaint alleges that the deceased had always from the time of his birth been in good health and free from any bodily infirmity, and that at the time of his death he had an expectancy of a life of forty years after his majority.

At the trial, in the district court for Scott county, before Macdonald, J., the plaintiff, to prove his intestate's expectancy of life, called one Bornarth, a fire insurance agent and city justice of the city of Shakopee, who produced a printed book which, he stated, purported to be a copy of the Carlisle tables, and was thereupon asked, "What is the expectancy of life of a healthy young man of 21 years?" — and, against defendant's objection and exception, answered "Forty and 74-100 years by these tables." Other exceptions taken are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff had a verdict for $800 damages, a new trial was refused, and the defendant appealed.

H. J. Peck, for appellant.

L. M. Brown, for respondent.

BERRY, J.

Under Gen. St. 1878, c. 77, § 2, the plaintiff, as administrator, brings this action to recover damages for the death of his son (18 months old) through the alleged negligence of defendant's locomotive engineer. Owing to the fact that another action was pending to recover for the loss by the plaintiff, as father, of the services of the deceased up to the age of 21 years, (see Scheffler v. Minn. & St. L. Ry. Co., ante, p. 125,) only such damages were claimed on the trial of the present action as would accrue to the plaintiff as next of kin by reason of the loss of such pecuniary benefits as he might (had his son lived) have received from him after his arrival at the age of 21 years. In this somewhat singular condition of things, the court, with reference to the amount of damages, after adverting to the fact that nothing was claimed for the time previous to 21, instructed the jury that the question for them to determine was "what a person in his (the deceased child's) condition of life would have accumulated, (and that you can judge of by the parents, and the manner in which they were living;) the amount which he would be likely to have accumulated over and above all expenses during life. Assuming that he would have lived that number of years," (meaning 40, which was testified to be the expectation of life of a person 21 years of age,) "and had been a person of good health, what he would have been likely to have earned over and above his expenses, which would be in the nature of an accumulation that might have passed to his next of kin. They are the parties that represent his estate, and it would belong to them, and is all that can be included in it," (meaning, as we understand, in the damages.) This was followed by an instruction that the damages must be of the character "already stated" to the jury, and "such only as would be acquired after this child had arrived at the age of 21 years."

Damages in an action of this kind are to be computed in reference to the reasonable expectations of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the life of the deceased. Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 103; Opsahl v. Judd, 30 Minn. 126. The instructions quoted go far beyond this rule. They...