Selders v. Armentrout

Decision Date25 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 38564,38564
PartiesEarl SELDERS and Ila Selders, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estates of Marcella Selders, Doureen Selders and Gary Selders, Deceased, Appellants, v. Charles Dale ARMENTROUT et al., Appellees.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

The measure of damages for the wrongful death of a minor child should be extended to include the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of the child.

Moyer & Moyer, Madison, for appellants.

Deutsch & Hagen, Thomas H. DeLay, Hutton, Hutton & Garden, Kirby & Spittler, Norfolk, for appellees.

Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ.

McCOWN, Justice.

This is an action by Earl and Ila Selders to recover damages for the wrongful deaths of three of their minor children. The children were killed in an automobile accident. The jury found the defendants Charles and William Armentrout negligent and returned a verdict against them for the exact amount of the medical and funeral expenses of the three children. The parents have appealed.

The sole issue on this appeal involves the proper elements and measure of damages in a tort action in Nebraska for the wrongful death of a minor child. The court essentially instructed the jury that except for medical and funeral expenses, the damages should be the monetary value of the contributions and services which the parents could reasonably have expected to receive from the children less the reasonable cost to the parents of supporting the children.

The defendants contend that the measure of damages is limited to pecuniary loss and that the instructions to the jury correctly reflect the measure and elements of damage. The plaintiffs assert that the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of the children are proper and compensable elements of damage, and that evidence of amounts invested or expended for the nurture, education, and maintenance of the children before death is proper.

An analysis of the history of our wrongful death statutes is appropriate. The statutory provision creating a cause of action for wrongful death has never contained the word 'pecuniary' but only referred to an action for 'damages.' That statute was section 1428, Rev.St.1913, and is now section 30-809, R.R.S.1943. The statute is still identical, word for word. What might be referred to as the procedural and limitation provisions were originally contained in section 1429, Rev.St.1913, now section 30-810, R.S.Supp., 1972. In 1913, that section provided in part: '* * * the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death * * *.' In 1919, that provision was changed to read: 'The verdict or judgment should be for the amount of damages which the persons in whose behalf the action is brought have sustained.' Laws 1919, c. 92, § 1, p. 235. This language and the preceding portions of the statute still remain unchanged today. In 1919, that particular language was followed by the words 'and the avails thereof shall be paid to and distributed among such persons in the same proportions as the personal property of an intestate under the inheritance laws.' From 1919 to 1945, the word 'pecuniary' did not appear in section 30-810, R.S.1943, nor any amendments to it.

In 1945, the language of section 30-810, R.S.1943, providing that 'the avails' of a wrongful death action should be distributed as personal property of an estate under inheritance laws was changed to the present language that: 'The avails thereof shall be paid to and distributed among the widow or widower and next of kin in the proportion that the pecuniary loss suffered by each bears to the total pecuniary loss suffered by all such persons.' The statutory reference to 'damages * * * sustained' remains unqualified and unrestricted.

It would seem clear that the word 'pecuniary' as it now appears in the statute does not refer to the 'damages' recoverable but only to the method of apportioning 'the avails' or the amount recovered as damages in a wrongful death action.

Although the defendants assert that the measure and elements of damages recoverable in a wrongful death action are by statute limited to pecuniary loss, and this state has sometimes been placed in the category of states having statutes of that kind, the historical background demonstrates the erroneousness of that concept. The case of Ensor v. Compton, 110 Neb. 522, 194 N.W. 458, decided in 1923, after the 1919 amendment above referred to, said: 'This amendment was made by the Legislature after this court had, by a long line of decisions, held that damages in this class of cases were limited under the statute to money loss or its equivalent. This change, while significant, does not provide a wide open door to all sorts of claims for damages. The loss under the statute is still a pecuniary loss.' That same case, however, allowed a recovery by a surviving husband for loss of services and companionship of his wife and said: 'In states having a statute similar to our own, it has generally been construed as permitting recovery of damages for loss of service and companionship under special circumstances where the evidence shows they have a money value.'

It is quite apparent from an examination of the judicial decisions and the legal literature in the field, that a broadening concept of the measure and elements of damages for the wrongful death of a minor child has been in the development stage for many years. See, Annotation, 14 A.L.R.2d 486; Speiser, Recovery for Wrongful Death, § 3:1, p. 54, et seq.; and § 4:16 to § 4:28, p. 323, et seq. Following a discussion of the rigid common law rules limiting recovery for wrongful death to the loss of pecuniary benefits, Prosser states: 'Recent years, however, have brought considerable modification of the rigid common law rules. It has been recognized that even pecuniary loss may extend beyond mere contributions of food, shelter, money or property; and there is now a decided tendency to find that the society, care and attention of the deceased are 'services' to the survivor with a financial value, which may be compensated. This has been true, for example, not only where a child has been deprived of a parent, * * * but also where the parent has lost a child * * *.' Prosser, Law of Torts (4th Ed.), § 127, p. 908.

The original pecuniary loss concept and its restrictive arose in a day when children during minority were generally regarded as an economic asset to parents. Children went to work on farms and in factories at age 10 and even earlier. This was before the day of child labor laws and long before the day of extended higher education for the general population. A child's earnings and services could be generally established and the financial or pecuniary loss which could be proved became the measure of damages for the wrongful death of a child. Virtually all other damages were disallowed as speculative or as sentimental.

The damages involved in a wrongful death case even today must of necessity deal primarily with a fictitious or speculative future flife, as it might have been had the wrongful death not occurred. For that reason, virtually all evidence of future damage is necessarily speculative to a degree. The measure and elements of damage involved in a wrongful death case, however, have been excessively restrictive as applied to a minor child in contrast to an adult. Modern economic reality emphasizes the gulf between the old concepts of a child's economic value and the new facts of modern family life. To limit damages for the death of a child to the monetary value of the services which the next of kin could reasonably have expected to receive during his minority less the reasonable expense of maintaining and educating him stamps almost all modern children as worthless in the eyes of the law. In fact, if the rule was literally followed, the average child would have a negative worth. This court has already held that contributions reasonably to be expected from a minor, not only during his minority but afterwards, may be allowed on evidence justifying a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit. Draper v. Tucker, 69 Neb. 434, 95 N.W. 1026; Fisher v. Trester, 119 Neb. 529, 229 N.W. 901. Even with that modification, the wrongful death of a child results in no monetary loss, except in the rare case, and the assumption that the traditional measure of damages is compensatory is a pure legal fiction.

Particularly in the last decade, a growing number of courts have extended the measure of damages to include the loss of society and companionship of the minor child, even under statutes limiting recovery to pecuniary loss or pecuniary value of services less the cost of support and maintenance, or similar limitations. See, Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347, 113 N.W.2d 355; Wycko v. Gnodtke, 361 Mich. 331, 105 N.W.2d 118; Lockhart v. Besel, 71 Wash.2d 112, 426 P.2d 605; Wardlow v. City of Keokuk, 190 N.W.2d 439 (Iowa, 1971).

In this state, the statute has not limited damages for wrongful death to pecuniary loss but this court has imposed that restriction. For an injury to the marital relationship, the law allows recovery for the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of a spouse. This court has allowed such a recovery for the wrongful death of a wife. See Ensor v. Compton, 110 Neb. 522, 194 N.W. 458. There is no logical reason for treating an injury to the family relationship resulting from the wrongful death of a child more restrictively. It is no more difficult for juries and courts to measure damages for the loss of the life of a child than many other abstract concepts with which they are required to deal. We hold that the measure of damages for the wrongful death of a minor child should be extended to include the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Siciliano v. Capitol City Shows, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1984
    ...to pecuniary loss because "children during minority were generally regarded as an economic asset to parents." Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 278, 207 N.W.2d 686, 688 (1973). During this time, children began working on the family farm or appeared at the minehead or factory gate as earl......
  • Guenther by Guenther v. Stollberg
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1993
    ...of parental pecuniary benefit but, rather, as a source of comfort, companionship, love, and society. Indeed, in Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973), we recognized that if recoverable damages for a child's wrongful death were restricted to the monetary value of the chi......
  • Thurmon v. Sellers
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 8 Octubre 2001
    ...& N.R. Co. v. Whisenant, 214 Miss. 421, 58 So.2d 908 (1952); Davis v. Smith, 152 Mont. 170, 448 P.2d 133 (1968); Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973); Green v. Bittner, 85 N.J. 1, 424 A.2d 210 (1980); Saguid v. Kingston Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 770, 623 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y.App.......
  • Green v. Bittner
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 30 Diciembre 1980
    ...as a pecuniary loss. Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347, 113 N.W.2d 355 (1961). The Nebraska Supreme Court, in Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973), overturned a judicially imposed strict pecuniary loss rule in order to allow recovery for loss of society, comfort and com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Flawed Justice: Limitation of Parental Remedies for the Loss of Consortium of Adult Children
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 27-03, March 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...v.Franklin Fuel Co., 174 N.W.2d 836, 836-40 (Mich. 1970). 155. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2922 (2003). 156. See Selders v. Armentrout, 207 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 1983); Fussner v. Andert, 113 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1961). 157. See Green, 424 A.2d at 216 n. 4; see also supra notes 121-22. 158. Frank, ......
  • ANTIABORTION CIVIL REMEDIES AND UNWED FATHERHOOD AS GENETIC ENTITLEMENT.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 6, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...20-16-1804 (parents or legal guardians of a woman who was a minor at the time of the abortion). (17.) See, e.g., Selders v. Armentrout, 207 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Neb. 1973) (holding that the measure of damages for wrongful death of minor children should include the loss of the society, comfort, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT