*1 no snch is abstracted. motion Six Again, ap- pages brief are devoted argument pellant’s point. on.the argument Neither nor the contains a single the abstract any testimony point. reference support contention must meet fate as Points III same IY. FOUNTAIN, v. CHICAGO,
Martha Adm’x
R. & P. I. RY. et al 5-4410 422 S. 2d 878 W.
Opinion delivered 22, 1968 January Gall, for appellant. C. James and William Over-
Wright, Jennings B. & Lindsey ton, for appellees.
Lyle This is death case wrongful Justice. Brown, Fountain, brought Martha Administratrix by appellant, Thompson, Ap- of the Estate 0. of Johnnie deceased. *2 pellees, Railway Chicago, & Rock Island Pacific Com- pany, employee, successfully its moved strike all and to anguish. pecuniary claims for benefits and mental Thompson by survived mother and several was his principal ruling brothers and the sisters. The of trial mother, court here the attacked is that death of the shortly which followed the fatal accident her ex- to son, possible anguish. tinguished any recovery for mental single, Thompson, employed Johnnie 0. and unloading by Magnet Corporation. Barium Cove While by a from a he metal car, Rock was struck ore Island alleged crank be attached to car and defective. the to proved by injury brought ad- The fatal. Suit was alleged (1) damage ministratrix. of were: The elements dependent pecuniary Thompson’s mother benefits ages years, his and 87 and 62 who house- sister, lived (2) anguish hold; mother and mental suffered as sister, other and sisters mem- brothers (3) expenditures of his and household; bers the es- tate. those of
The defendants moved strike elements to recovery (1) alleged: (a) at and described only Thompson’s the time was the death, of mother his wrong- meaning “heir and next kin” of within the (b) shortly acci- ful after the fatal death statute; her dent and mother died and filed, before suit was Thompson (c) action not stand cause of did abated; parentis in loco mother and of house- to the his sister (d) were not en- hold; and that the brothers and sisters anguish. sus- titled to recover for mental trial only claim and left tained the motion to strike litigated. to be the benefit of estate dispose admin- the contention First, pecuniary of, to, loss istratrix that recovery. proper Those mother elements are rights Jenkins, mother. the death of the abated with Valley R., v. Midland R. Admr. Ark. 203 S. W. 1, (1918). point next consider that the administratrix We Peugh part, overrule, asks us to which, substance, Oliger, (1961). Admx., 233 Ark. 2d 610 S. W. anguish, recovery for With reference to holds be limited relatives enumerated who are also heirs at law. jurisdictions
Decisions from other are no aid be- allowing cause their statutes are dis- tinctly (Ark. different from our Act 255 of 1957 Stat. *3 [Repl. 1962]). significant Ann. 27-906-10 §§ The dif- part, ference is that, for the most other statutes the list priority relatives in with the of each classes, estab- class point originally lished. We out that our Act 255 do was by drafted a committee of Arkansas Bar the Associa- adopted tion and was with some modification the Legislature. was that There available to committee the recovery statutes of those states which then allowed for anguish. mental Nevertheless, the bar committee elected place single group. to the in a beneficiaries That fact is significance legislative determining some intent. points per- analyzing
In Act 255 find three we these suasive :
(1) Legislature in a all beneficiaries listed The single beneficiary group, specifying priority of one no the over other.; Peugh Oliger interpretation The does
allow all named to for their the beneficiaries recover daugh- anguish. mental That decision did treat foster anguish purposes ter an heir at the as law for permit placing statute and her to recover. But in that him, daughter category this court re- the of next recovery versed a modest awarded both could to a deceased. It sister the was held 71-year-old surviving sis- not recover. Mrs. the Drake, according ter of the deceased, to the evidence, was so distraught required that she constant attention for time considerable after the accident which was to fatal only living They neighbors her sister. been close had years forty daily. they saw almost each other When apart they moved a short saw other distance each week- ly telephone. daughter talked on The foster had years been married since and for several immedi- prior ately to the foster her foster mother’s death daughter quarrel lived 165 distant. miles We have no daughter, although allowance to foster recovery permitted by a construction of novel interpretation of However, statute. think an Act contrary recovery deny to is Avhichwould Drake Mrs. Legislature. could intent of Her great, greater, that of as or than have been daughter. foster evidentiary just recited, between as situation daughter, us to con- leads Drake and foster
Mrs. (1964): R. “This in Ark. L. clusion so well stated narrowly provision construed the Arkansas has been effectively prevent Supreme so however, Court, a re- suffering in cases. for mental As some anguish provision loses of the statute the mental sult, *4 approach vitality A liberal much of more its .... wording would consistent of the be statute legislature.” expressions reasoning persuaded by Finally, in we are adopt hereby opinion. Peugh dissenting and opinion bv that reference. and
Reversed remanded. J., dissent. J.,C. and Fogleman, Harris, dissenting. Justice, While A. Fogleman, John arguments strong that were, advanced be, can and Peugh Oliger, 2d 281, v. Ark. 345 S. W. decision I the action of ma- dissent from 610, correct, jority previous I do not because believe that decisions construing lig'htly a statute should be so overruled. The Peugli decision was made in March of 1961. The General Assembly regular has inmet three sessions that since changing [Ark. time without Act 255 of 1957 Stat. Ann. (Repl. 1962)], allowing §§ 27-906 - 27-910 the statute wrongful for mental cases. death by this The construction of statute court became a that part of the law. In Merchants’ & Warehouse Transfer Gates, 406, 180 Ark. Co. W. this court S. 2d said: ques-
“When the construed Act of 1927 in part such tion, construction much became as statute as if in it.” written
Perhaps necessary certainty, we can still have the stability being predictability in our law without and by an doctrine of shackled inflexible adherence to the IBut that when a meant stare decisis. submit statute something yesterday, thing it mean else one today. should not statutory overruling construction of this jus- injustice than me to rather seems to be vehicle (cid:127) anguish say many claims for Who can how tice. today’s have become definition under now recoverable has case while this of limitations barred the statute many have pending? of claimants hundreds How been attorneys they no claim had that been advised their wrongful damages death for many have of times dozens March 1961? How cases since non-liability men- judges verdicts of directed circuit an- anguish damages to submit or refused tal tried before damages in cases guish as an element There should case? in the decision since the them judicial action predictability certainty enough be rea- judges act with attorneys can litigants, rely they clear on can degree assurance sonable sys- judicial clog our would precedent. alternative *5 example, liti- a For burden. an insurmountable tem recovery by a from barred only is be sure he gant could attorney pursuing resort, a of an case to the court last only speculation indulge advising- in a could rank system client judge might resort to a trial ad, might applying hoc the law feel it decisions he ought any particular any particular day. to he in on case changed Nothing has March 20, the date since prior except personnel of the decision, court. of the repeat, any any I aswe, well as or liti court, trial gant, should be court bound definition terms this given has particularly statute, to the words of a when law-making government branch not at has tempted change to correct or that definition. Since the supra, Oliger, construction became as much part it, as written into this has if statute legislatively changing meaning acted its words. judgment I would affirm the lower court. joins am J., I authorized state that Harris, C. this dissent.
Carl WIDMER of Arkansas v. STATE 2d S. W. January
Opinion 22, delivered