Beems v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.
58 Iowa 150, 12 N.W. 222 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a wrongful death action, evidence of the number of the decedent's children or the amount of property they have accumulated is inadmissible to prove the value of the decedent's life to their estate, as such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial.
Facts:
- The decedent, an employee of the defendant railroad company, was tasked with uncoupling a tender from a moving car.
- The decedent made a first attempt to uncouple the cars but was unsuccessful.
- He then stepped out from between the cars and signaled to the engine crew to check the train's speed.
- Believing the signal would be obeyed, the decedent immediately went back between the cars to make a second attempt at uncoupling them.
- The engine crew did not obey the signal to slow down.
- The train, moving at an improper and unusual rate of speed, ran over the decedent and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as administrator of the decedent's estate, sued the defendant railroad company in the Circuit Court (trial court).
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff on March 16, 1880.
- Judgment was entered on the verdict on March 22, 1880.
- The defendant filed motions for a new trial and for judgment non-obstante, which the trial court overruled.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence regarding the number of a decedent's children and the value of their accumulated property admissible in a wrongful death action to determine the value of the decedent's life to their estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Day, J.
No. Evidence regarding the number of a decedent's children and the value of their property is not admissible to determine the value of their life to their estate. The central question is the value of the decedent's life to his estate, and the number of his children has no legitimate bearing on that calculation. While evidence of marital status may be competent, as it can be assumed a married person may be more industrious and frugal, experience does not show that one's income increases with the number of children. Admitting such evidence serves only to appeal to the sympathy of the jury, which is improper and prejudicial, rather than to establish the economic loss to the estate. The court distinguished its prior holding in Simonson v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co., stating that case went to the 'verge of propriety' and its doctrine would not be extended.
Dissenting - Beck, J.
Yes. Evidence of the decedent's family size and accumulated property should be admissible. This evidence tends to show the circumstances that stimulated the decedent to industry and providence, which are qualities that would add to the value of his personal services to his own estate. The fact that the decedent had accumulated property while supporting a family demonstrates his industry and economy, virtues that rendered his life more valuable in the acquisition of property. Therefore, such evidence is relevant to determining the value of his life to his estate.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear exclusionary rule for damages evidence in wrongful death cases, aiming to prevent jury verdicts based on sympathy rather than economic calculation. It distinguishes between evidence logically related to earning capacity (like marital status) and evidence that is purely prejudicial (like the number of dependents). The ruling refines prior precedent by creating a bright-line rule that limits the introduction of a decedent's personal circumstances, thereby focusing the damages inquiry strictly on the economic loss to the estate. This holding influences trial strategy by limiting the types of evidence plaintiffs can use to demonstrate the value of a decedent's life.
