Selders v. Armentrout
207 N.W.2d 686 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The measure of damages for the wrongful death of a minor child is not limited to pecuniary loss, but also includes the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of the child.
Facts:
- Earl and Ila Selders were the parents of three minor children.
- Charles and William Armentrout negligently caused an automobile accident.
- The Selders' three minor children were killed in the accident.
- As a result of their children's deaths, the Selders incurred medical and funeral expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl and Ila Selders sued Charles and William Armentrout in a Nebraska trial court for wrongful death.
- At trial, the jury found the Armentrouts were negligent.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Selders in an amount equal to the exact medical and funeral expenses incurred.
- The Selders, as appellants, appealed the damage award to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 for a minor child, are damages limited solely to the parents' pecuniary loss, or do they also include non-pecuniary damages for the loss of the child's society, comfort, and companionship?
Opinions:
Majority - McCown, J.
No. The measure of damages for the wrongful death of a minor child is not limited to pecuniary loss and should be extended to include the loss of the society, comfort, and companionship of the child. The court reasoned that the historical limitation to 'pecuniary' loss was a judicial creation, not a statutory one, as the Nebraska wrongful death statute never explicitly limited the term 'damages.' This old rule originated in an era when children were viewed as economic assets, a concept that is now an outdated legal fiction. To continue applying this rule would render most modern children 'worthless in the eyes of the law.' The court found no logical reason to deny recovery for loss of a child's companionship when it is already permitted for the loss of a spouse's companionship, and it overruled prior decisions to the contrary.
Dissenting - White, C. J.
Yes. Damages for the wrongful death of a minor child should be limited to pecuniary loss. The dissent argued that the majority's decision is an act of 'judicial fiat' that ignores over 50 years of precedent and the Legislature's intent. The 1945 statutory amendment, which mandates distribution of wrongful death awards based on 'the total pecuniary loss suffered,' implicitly affirmed the court's long-standing pecuniary-loss-only rule. By allowing recovery for non-pecuniary elements like 'society' and 'comfort,' the court is inviting juries to issue speculative verdicts based on emotion and sympathy, with no objective standards for measurement. This policy change, the dissent contends, is a matter for the Legislature, not the judiciary.
Dissenting - Clinton, J.
Yes. Damages should be limited to pecuniary loss, consistent with the doctrine of the 'law of the case.' This specific legal dispute had been before the court previously in a related action (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Selders), where the court explicitly reiterated that the measure of damages was limited to pecuniary loss. That prior holding established the 'law of the case,' which should have been binding on the trial court and on the Supreme Court in this subsequent appeal. By changing the rule now, the majority is engaging in a 'raw exercise of judicial fiat' and improperly altering the governing legal standard mid-litigation.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of Nebraska's wrongful death jurisprudence, moving it away from the rigid and outdated pecuniary loss rule for minors. By aligning the valuation of a child's life with that of a spouse's, the court acknowledged the primarily relational, rather than economic, value of a child in a modern family. The ruling expands potential recoveries for plaintiffs but also, as the dissent highlights, creates challenges for lower courts in guiding juries on how to quantify abstract losses like 'society' and 'companionship' without resorting to speculation or sentiment.
Unlock the full brief for Selders v. Armentrout