Sipes v. Mich. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 137.,137.
• Parties: SIPES v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

231 Mich. 404

204 N.W. 84

SIPES

v.MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.

No. 137.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 18, 1925.

Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Benjamin Williams, Judge.

Action by Flossie C. Sipes, as administratrix, against the Michigan Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. Cobb, Bisbee & Wilson, of Jackson (Frank E. Robson and J. W. Dohany, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Bresnahan & Groefsema, of Detroit, and Davis & Michel, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

WIEST, J.

Floyd R. Good, aged 24, was a brakeman in the employ of defendant and on December 23, 1922, a locomotive boiler exploded and killed him. He left a wife, to whom he had been married 19 months, and a female child 6 months of age. This suit was brought under the federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) to recover for the widow and the child their pecuniary loss occasioned by his death. Liability is conceded by defendant. The jury awarded $15,166.66 compensation. Defendant reviews by writ of error. The errors relied on relate to requested instructions, the charge of the court, and the claim that the verdict is excessive.

From the time of his marriage to the day of his death, a period of 19 months, decedent earned $1,204.65, an average of $760.80 per year, or $63.40 per month. His employment by defendant extended over a period of 72 days, and was somewhat irregular. From the date of his marriage he and his family lived with his wife's parents, and for board and room he agreed to pay $22 per week, but at the time of his death he was indebted for such board and room some $300 or $400, and owed also a doctor's bill of $50.

Defendant's requests to charge bring before us the question of whether the jury should have been instructed that, in the absence of evidence tending to show a reasonable prospect of larger earnings by the deceased, had he lived, they should base their findings of pecuniary loss to the widow and child upon his known earnings and contributions, and not upon a mere speculative supposition of increase in earnings under problematical future opportunities. With the modification we shall point out respecting the child, we think the issue should have been so circumscribed. See Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Elliott, 149 U. S. 266, 13 S. Ct. 837, 37 L. Ed. 728.

The pecuniary loss to an infant, in the death of a parent, may go beyond consideration of food, shelter, clothing, and like material comforts, and include the expense of supplying such degree of nurture, and intellectual, moral, and physical training, as the evidence shows such parent was, by reason of ability, character, and temperament, capable of giving. Mere parentage, however, does not carry such a showing. Evidence relating to the nurture bestowed, and revealing the intellectual powers and moral character of the person, is available, and must be introduced to show the extent of what would have been supplied by the deceased had he lived, and, by reason of his death, need now be bought and paid for. To measure what has been lost, it is necessary to consider the capacity of the parent to bestow. Without such light, the jury would have to apply their own standards, based on their individual experiences, and these would, of necessity, ...