Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz
21 A.L.R. 4th 1, 421 A.2d 1027, 491 Pa. 561 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When calculating damages for lost future earnings, courts must consider evidence of the victim's potential productivity increases and, as a matter of law, shall not discount the total award to present value, as future inflation is presumed to be completely offset by future interest rates.
Facts:
- Eric K. Kaczkowski was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Bolubasz.
- An automobile accident occurred, which resulted in Kaczkowski's death.
- At the time of his death, Kaczkowski was a twenty-year-old male.
- He had completed two years at Alliance College and was currently enrolled at the Institute of Computer Management.
- Witnesses described Kaczkowski as being in good health, industrious, and motivated in his studies.
- The Director of Placement at his institute testified that graduates with his qualifications could expect to earn average monthly salaries ranging from $538.36 to $900.
Procedural Posture:
- Kaczkowski's estate (appellant) filed a trespass complaint against Bolubasz (appellee) in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- In the first trial, a jury found Bolubasz liable for the accident.
- Appellant's Motion for a New Trial on the issue of damages was granted, leading to a retrial.
- In the retrial, the trial court prohibited appellant's expert from projecting a 4% annual increment for inflation and productivity, based on the precedent of Havens v. Tonner.
- The jury returned a verdict of $30,000.
- The trial court denied appellant's subsequent Motion for a New Trial.
- Appellant appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision per curiam.
- Appellant filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by excluding expert economic testimony regarding future inflation and productivity gains when calculating an award for lost future earnings in a wrongful death action?
Opinions:
Majority - Nix, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by excluding reliable economic testimony regarding future inflation and productivity. The prior rule, which treated such factors as too speculative, is unrealistic and fails to provide full compensation to victims. The court adopts a new, two-part framework: first, courts shall permit evidence of a victim's lost future productivity based on factors such as age, education, and skill; second, courts shall adopt the 'total offset method,' which presumes as a matter of law that the future inflation rate and the interest rate used for discounting to present value are equal and offset each other, thereby eliminating the need to discount an award for lost future earnings.
Concurring - Roberts, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees that the 'total offset' rule should be adopted because it abrogates the unrealistic and confusing practice of reducing awards to present value. It is simpler and fairer for all parties. The opinion also notes that Pennsylvania law has long permitted juries to consider future earning fluctuations, both increases and decreases. Finally, it suggests that today's ruling does not preclude the future development of other common-law approaches, such as installment payments, to ensure fair compensation.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Flaherty, J.
Yes, in part. The opinion concurs that the prior rule from Havens v. Tonner should be eliminated as unrealistic. However, it dissents from the majority's adoption of the 'total offset method,' calling it a 'per se rule of doubtful validity.' Instead of creating a rigid legal presumption, the court should simply permit expert testimony on both inflation and productivity, allowing the jury to weigh the evidence from both sides and reach its own conclusion.
Analysis:
This decision represents a fundamental shift in Pennsylvania tort law, moving the state from a traditional rule that deemed future economic trends too speculative to a modern approach that embraces economic science. By overruling Havens v. Tonner, the court significantly increases the potential size of damage awards for lost future earnings. The adoption of the 'total offset method' is particularly impactful, creating a bright-line rule that simplifies trials by eliminating complex and often conflicting expert testimony on inflation and interest rates, while ensuring that the risk of economic uncertainty favors the victim rather than the tortfeasor.
