Follett v. Jones
481 S.W.2d 713 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant whose negligent act hastens the death of a person with a pre-existing terminal condition is liable for wrongful death. However, to recover damages for the shortened lifespan, the plaintiff must produce evidence providing a reasonable basis for the jury to determine the period of time by which the life was shortened.
Facts:
- Chauncy G. Jones had an undiagnosed, terminal cancerous condition of the lung.
- The appellant negligently drove a car that collided with a pick-up truck driven by Jones.
- As a result of the collision, Jones suffered three broken ribs, contusions, abrasions, and a blow to the head.
- Jones was taken to a hospital where his terminal cancer was discovered via x-rays taken for his injuries.
- Jones died 17 days after the accident.
- An autopsy listed cancer as the cause of death, but two medical experts testified that the injuries from the accident hastened his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Jones, as administratrix and individually, sued the appellant in a trial court for the wrongful death of her husband, Chauncy G. Jones.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the appellees, finding that the appellant's negligence was the proximate cause of Jones' death.
- The jury awarded $3,867.89 in damages to Mrs. Jones as administratrix and $8,000.00 to her individually.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The appellant (the defendant from the trial) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wrongful death action where the decedent had a pre-existing terminal illness, must the plaintiff provide evidence of the specific period of time by which the defendant's negligence shortened the decedent's lifespan to recover damages for that loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frank Holt
Yes. In a wrongful death action involving a victim with a pre-existing terminal illness, a plaintiff must provide evidence from which a jury can determine the period of time by which the accident shortened the decedent's life for a damages award to be sustained. The court found that while the medical testimony that the accident 'hastened' Jones' death was sufficient to establish proximate causation as a question of fact for the jury, it was not sufficient to support a damages award for the shortened lifespan. An award for wrongful death without any evidence of the duration of life lost is based on speculation and lacks a reasonable basis. Because there was no evidence relating to Jones' normal life span or the relative time by which the accident shortened it, the jury's award was speculative. However, since it is possible that such evidence could be supplied on retrial, the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the case.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the 'eggshell skull' principle in the context of wrongful death, holding a tortfeasor liable for hastening a victim's death even if the victim was already terminally ill. However, the case establishes a crucial evidentiary requirement for calculating damages in such situations. It mandates that plaintiffs move beyond merely proving that death was hastened and provide a quantitative basis for the jury's award, thereby preventing damages based on pure speculation. This precedent requires plaintiffs to obtain more specific expert medical testimony regarding the impact of an injury on a pre-existing condition and life expectancy, strengthening the link between evidence and damage awards in wrongful death cases.
