Stevens v. Schickendanz, 36897
| Decision Date | 23 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36897,36897 |
| Citation | 316 P.2d 1111 |
| Parties | Lottie STEVENS, Plaintiff in Error. v. Grafton SCHICKENDANZ, as Administrator of the Estate of Genta Marie Schickendanz, Deceased, Defendant it Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The law presumes, at least, a nominal damage to a parent from the death of a child. As compensation for loss of life of a child, based upon the negligent act of another, a parent may be allowed substantial damages, measured by the experience and judgment of a jury enlightened only by a knowledge of age, sex, and condition in life of the deceased child.
2. Where appellant seeks to set aside a verdict on the ground of its alleged excessiveness, unless it is so plainly outrageously excessive as to suggest passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury, the reviewing court cannot set it aside.
Appeal from the District Court of Ellis County; W. P. Keen, Judge.
Action by Grafton Schickendanz, administrator of the estate of Genta Marie Schickendanz, deceased, against Lottie Stevens. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Grigsby, Foliart & Hunt, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Bryan Billings, Woodward, for defendant in error.
Genta Marie Schickendanz, a female child two years and nine months of age, met death when an automobile being driven by her grandmother, Lottie Stevens, overturned.
Grafton Schickendanz, as administrator of the estate of Genta Marie Schickendanz, deceased, and for the benefit of Ray and Dorothy Schickendanz, the parents of the decedent, brought suit for wrongful death against Lottie Stevens, alleging the death occurred as result of the defendant's negligence, and that the said parents sustained a loss by reason of the loss of the prospective services and earnings of their minor child in an amount of $10,000.
Trial resulted in verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant for $10,000, and the defendant brings appeal.
It is argued there was prejudicial and inflammatory argument to the jury by counsel for the plaintiff whereby there was a violation of the rule prohibiting the disclosure of liability insurance to the jury in such cases; that plaintiff's argument contained a subtle and indirect but nevertheless successful attempt to convey to the jury that the defendant was insured and with resulting prejudice to the defendant as reflected in the verdict of the jury.
The record reflects, and indeed it is tacitly admitted, there was sufficient evidence to permit the inference that the defendant was guilty of negligence which resulted in the death of the plaintiff's decedent. Otherwise, there was some evidence concerning the conditions in life under which the decedent minor child had lived, and that decedent was in good health at the time of death.
Our attention is directed to the closing argument presented to the jury by counsel for the plaintiff, and we have carefully examined it.
We deem it not necessary to copy the argument here. It does not mention the word 'insurance,' nor is there an apt description of liability insurance, nor a direct suggestion of a liability other than that of the defendant.
We do not perceive that the jury herein was advised by the plaintiff's counsel's argument that the defendant herein was or was not covered by insurance, or that the closing argument for the plaintiff contained any matter of harmful or injurious effect such as constituted a prejudice of rights of the defendant.
The defendant argues: 'the amount of the verdict is manifestly excessive, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.'
Mindful of the law of this state that damages for wrongful death are strictly compensatory, we are here confronted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Olson
...204 Okl. 93, 277 P.2d 404, 23 A.L.R.2d 1141 (1950) with a judgment of $10,000 for an 8-year-old child's death; and Stevens v. Schickendanz, Okl., 316 P.2d 1111 (1957) with a judgment of $10,000 for the death of a 2-year-9-month-old child. A syllabus by the court in Stevens, supra, said such......
-
Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co.
...v. Keeshin Motor Exp. Co., 341 Ill.App. 8, 92 N.W.2d 794 (1950).10 See: Rogers v. Worthan, 465 P.2d 431 (Okl.1970); Stevens v. Schickendanz, 316 P.2d 1111 (Okl.1957).The Colorado Supreme Court in Jones v. Hildebrant, 550 P.2d 339, 342 (Colo.1976) recently held that the net pecuniary loss ru......
-
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnston
...so as to suggest, in itself, that it was the result of passion and/or prejudice on the part of the jury. See Stevens v. Schickendanz, Okl., 316 P.2d 1111 (2nd syll.). As indicated in Bready v. Tipton, Okl., 407 P.2d 194, 205, 'since the verdict is general * * * (it) furnishes no clue as to ......
-
Rogers v. Worthan
...the verdict for $10,000.00 for the death of an eight year old daughter was held not to be excessive, and in Stevens v. Schickendanz, Administrator (Okl., 1957), 316 P.2d 1111, wherein the verdict for $10,000.00 for the death of a two years and nine months old daughter was held not to be In ......