*1 482 357 say can
which we the result well Gapske supra. Hatch, been v. different. appellee. Affirmed. Costs J., Kelly, Carr, Smith, Black, Dethmers, C. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred. Voelker, and BOARD OF v. COUNTY THOMPSON OGEMAW COMMISSIONERS. ROAD Injury Minors—Pecuniary of Parent. Death — 1. permitted in an of a minor is of services of loss Consideration determining pecuniary injury of act the death under action 691.581, 1948, 691.582). (CL parent §§ Parent, Support and Child — Parent 2. support may contribute ordered to An adult child seq., 1948, (CL et 401.1 proper circumstances parent § under amended). Support Age Expectation Child. — of 3. Death —Parent’s than parent, rather expectation of of a reasonable child is death of the particular time at the parent under recovery be had the test of whether 691.581, (CL 1948, the child death aet for the death of §§ 691.582). [1] [3] [2] '5' '6] 4] 7] Laws § 16 16 16 11 Am 16 Am Am Am Am Am Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, 7. References Death Death Death Death Death § Constitutional Parent and § §§ § §§ 243. 153. 44, 60, for Points et Child 209. seq. Law 62. § § 70; 139. in Headnotes 41 Am Jur, Poor and Poor Road Commrs. Instructions—Support Parents After Minor 4. Same — Majority. Beached jury in action under death act 15- Instruction to for death of year-old permitted jury girl, which to award for loss *2 held, majority, would have attained trial, proper granting pre- for basis new under evidence (CL 691.581, 691.582). 1948, sented §§ Purpose 5. Same — of Act —Common Law —Evidence. remedial, wrongful designed The death is al- act measure generally forbidding compensa- leviate common-law rule wrongful for qual- tion death and lack of an exact ity legislative purpose should not to defeat allowed (CL 1948, 691.581, 691.582). §§ Policy. 6. Constitutional Law —Public legislature power policy has the to decide what the of the be, will, law shall and it has intimated its however indi- rectly, recognized obeyed. that will should be Minors—Damages. 7. Death — Jury’s $12,072 award under death act special father as 15-year-old daughter administrator of estate of his who had been killed because of negligence in maintaining defendant’s county held, road, just” compensation “fair and under evi- showing father, dence death, at time un- had been employable condition, several because of a heart daughter family support by per contributed $5 week performance addition to of household per- services whieh mitted employed home, the mother to be outside the funeral expenses $800.27, $10,000 amounted to was claimed as present minority, worth during of services daughter con- templated taking job high over mother’s outside when sehool (CLS course completed 242.1; 1948, 1956, CL § §§691- .581, 691.582). Dethmers, J., Kelly, JJ., C. and Carr dissenting. Appeal Ogemaw; (John C.), Shaffer J. Sub- (Docket January 9,
mitted No. 1959. 44, No. Calendar 47,683.) Decided October 1959. Thompson, special
Case John L. administrator, Thompson, against estate of Elda L. Oge- deceased, County maw Board of Road Commissioners for dam- ages arising under the death act from automobile
collision plain- caused road. defective Verdict granted. appeals. tiff. New trial Plaintiff Re- entry versed judgment and remanded for on ver- dict.
(cid:127) F. Peter van Benschoten <&van Ben- Cieinelli and plaintiff. schoten, for (Carl counsel), Smith, Sr., & Broolcer
Smith E. Clemence, and Randall for defendant. B. wrongful This a suit under J. Edwards, brought by special acting act a father
death ad- 15-year-old ministrator of daughter. estate of his deceased alleged girl’s declaration death negligence caused defendant *3 county keep county failing of road in board commissioners reasonably a fit for travel, road safe duty. statutory in violation its See OLS (Stat 9.591). § § 242.1 Ann 1958 Rev at the trial the existence of a Evidence showed Ogemaw large road, in hole in the west half Damon county, Darling hill, south of the crest the hole prior in months date had been there some knowledge question, had actual defendant existence. of its passenger daughter an a in auto-
Plaintiff’s night traveling Damon on the south on road mobile in The car she was struck 6,1953. November of control swerved into to, went out referred hole with an it collided head-on lane where the left-hand opposite being in direction. driven automobile persons daughter car 3 other Plaintiff’s killed. Ogemaw jury county before an tried The case was brought favor of verdict $12,072 which plaintiff. Eoad Commrs.
Subsequent defendant-appellee sought to verdict, ground trial and obtained new on the that the incorrectly charged jury on the issue of the. allowing jury to consider loss of con- parental dependency, tributions, due to which the subsequent minor child otherwise made birthday. 21st to her appeal, presented
On the issue is to us thus: wrongful “In the event of the death of a minor, -pe- consider and award cuniary injuries’ after the surviving parents suffered period minority?” of the child’s testimony pertaining pecuniary damages upon jury apparently may. which based award its headings: under 3 summarized
(1) (2) expenses stipulated. Funeral of $800.27—
Loss of services. This item was estimated plaintiff particu- $10,000 at when asked for a bill pertaining damage lars $25,000 to his clause. The presented testimony daughter’s in relation to the following: services included the At the of death; time decedent was 15 old. intelligent, healthy girl, completing She was an high requirements. money school She earned baby-sitter parents, and contributed to her on an average, per to$5 $5.50 week. father suf- Decedent’s hardening fered from heart trouble, arthritis and sufficiently incapacitating arteries, him that so unemployed he had been principal since 1948. family earnings source income was derived of decedent’s mother, a cook in a In restaurant. or- *4 employment, der for the mother to retain daughter performed cooking, washing general family housework for the to the of extent 4 6 hours day. of work each (3) prospective beyond Loss contributions
age of [Oct.. 357 above,
In addition the facts recited decedent’s- father testified: planned' Thompson, you “Q. Mr. do know what was graduate yonr daughter after she would high school? place going to take and let.
“A. mother’s She was come mother home. going “Q. in the restau- You mean work she rant? * ** “A. Yes. “Q. job your present that wife holds?' Is Yes,
“A. “Q. sir. agreeable plan, to that sir? Was Elda “A. her talk about it. Yes, her and mother used to just used tell her mother could cook as- She she good as she could. your going
“Q. Then to do at wife, what was she time ? * * * supposed come “A. “Q. home. She was daughter, your Mr.. At the of the death time help Thompson, you in serv- need both ? ices contributions * ** “A. Yes. Thompson, your opinion, under “Q. Now, Mr. you family as have them circumstances described you your daughter’s here, would have been need of money she- contributions even after services ** * ? reached the had lived “A. Yes.” charge court’s on the con-
The issue of (2) (1) expenses; Funeral cerned elements: loss minority; during the deceased services (3) of her future contributions after and the 21st loss
birthday. appeal invalidity pertains This to the claimed charge regarding The trial this third element. judge’s words follow: you find after so far “Now they years,
she would reached *5 Eoad Commrs. computed period would be and allowed for such you dependency time as find condition of part taking of the exist, into consider- might ation the fact that she he relieved of such de- pendency by inability age to through her own par- death, sickness or otherwise to her contribute taking ; ents and into consideration the that sueh fact dependency would cease in at event such time as you may age, determine from the condition health expectancy they and life surviving of her or the Again survivor themof would I cau- die. you present tion that it is the worth of these various explained you, as I amounts, it it es- is sential to find.” judge’s charge pecuniary The trial also in- defined jury: “Pecuniary money money loss, loss means the injury caused such death. Now in connec- say provide tion I also that the law does not any damages
for the word for sentimental reasons. It uses ‘pecuniary’ distinguishes which it from those other matters which are of sentiment, matters companionship, of sort and affection and of things love and those always present anyone are which when pecuniary injury.” but the dies, refers to law question requires presented appeal in terpretation meaning Michigan wrong of the of (Stat §§ ful 1957 Cum 1948, 691.581, death act. CL 691.582 Ann Supp 27.712).* §§ controlling 27.711, liable, tion had not case, notwithstanding though the death shall have been caused under sueh eireumstanees damages, fault, State of sulting “Be [*] amount The relevant and recover and the it ensued) Michigan, enacted person who, death death, law to act, neglect damages, portions have entitled the shall be whenever felony. the senate and house of or the of the statute follow: ensued, caused or respect All the death of a death corporation default actions shall be liable party injured by wrongful thereof, sueh whieh person injured, then and in such person representatives as would act, to maintain would have death, neglect or an action fori injuries every (if injuries or de- an death: been: sueh; ac- re- al- language
statutory every in relation to “in is, this case give jury may action the court or such jury, damages, the court or deem fair and as, shall *6 injury pecuniary just, reference to the result- with ing from such death.” n granting motion for trial in defendant’s jury his trial that he had erred in instruc- .held new tion allowing future con- consideration of parents by minor after to her this tributions of 21. interpreting Michigan it case law
The statute and
in
of a minor
allow
determining pecuniary
of loss of services
consideration
injury
parent.
Black v.
v.
aof
Michigan
Co.,
568;
R.
146 Mich
Sceba
Central
1090)
(LRA1918C,
;
Co.,
R.
There an adult contributions of of a minor and the services parent. daughter dependent con- Such or son obligation. a moral Under are than tributions proper more daughter may an adult son or circumstances support. 1948 and CL contribute ordered to be (Stat seq. § Rev and Ann 1950 401.1 et 1956, CLS seq.). Supp § et 16.121 1957 Cum voluntarily obligation, pecuniary of such value recognized law. case been assumed, has brought only aet.” under deatli, be resulting hereafter shall 27.711). Supp (Stat Ann 1957 Cum 1948, 691.581 § CL § of, by, names brought and in the “Every action shall be sueh every person, representatives of sueh deceased personal damages, as, may give just, the court sueh court or action the sueh or pecuniary reference to the jury, deem fair shall en- death, persons be resulting to those who injury from sueh damages when recovered and also to such titled expenses for which medical, hospital, burial funeral and reasonable pain compensation liable and reasonable estate undergone by person dur- conscious, such deceased suffering, while inflicting of such intervening time of the ing injuries period between the Chm (Stat Ann 1957 and his death.” CL 691.582 § 27.712). Supp § 489 Road Commrs. v. parent, dependent son aof ease In the voluntarily and con undertaken had 23 jury to con held to allow tinued expecta was reasonable not there whether sider determining support in of continued tion Borg-Warner arising Judis v. death. from son’s MacDonald v. Corporation, See, also, 313. 339 Mich Quimby, Mich 21. 350 majority recov large hold that courts of State A reasonably to
ery may benefits for the loss be majority In expected of the deceased. after the Bryan, Copper Ariz 35 spiration v.Co. Consolidated Pennsylvania Co., 846); R. (276 Bohrman v. P (93 190); Direito, Super Foerster v. A2d 23 NJ (170 986). Van App2d See, also, P2d 75 Cal (166 244); Lynch, anno P2d 109 Utah Cleave dam and elements 485,Measure tation, 14 ALR2d resulting injury infant. personal in death of ages for *7 child at death the that the of do not believe We majority) toas (whether decisive or after is before support future of loss of consideration Michigan Nothing birthday. statute in the 21st the suggests wrongful pertaining a distinc- death (Stat seq. § Ann 1957Cum 691.581et 1948, tion. CL seq.). language the Supp § of Judis The 27.711 et suggest that the test is rea- Cases MacDonald any par- expectation support rather than of sonable of at the time death. ticular language judge felt that the the trial note that We required Colburn, 240, Mich 308 in v. Covell contained Although we grant him trial. motion new quite these, facts therein as different read suggests a differ- extent the Covell Case it is overruled. conclusion, ent question present- legal the basic decides this While in appeal desirable comment some in this ed questions in- upon of all most difficult case this wrongful must definite death cases—how in volved 357 bearing upon pecuniary injury the evidence be to support jury award? recognized point
It must be at this that some un- proof implicit certainty of in the of the is terms stat- interpret. pecuniary injury we ute seek con- templated by requires the act consideration of the probability happening of the which, events as permanently date trial, been barred the intervention of death.
Briefly put, thing there can be no such as direct support supporter evidence when is future guarantees testimony dead. This fact alone can be no proof probable offered of otherwise fu- completely ture or contribution which avoids speculation. only certainty Indeed the in relation testimony to such prove will is no one ever be able disprove validity. perhaps its It is for this emphasis upon places reason that the statute “such as the court or shall deem fair and just.” quality an
Lack of exact not, should how legislative purpose. allowed ever, be to defeat the Michigan wrongful death act a remedial is meas designed provisions ure to alleviate the harsh generally interpreted commonlaw which has been as compensation forbidding wrongful death.* Mr. Baker part of survivors. penalties was forfeiture must fault, may have tainable the sively criminal civil begins Eor Indeed, [*] an Lord Chief Justice The source wrongdoer court stop injury; historic an with this *8 against Bolton, interesting the death of preamble —thus origin nature of actions for language: a caused the death of another 1 Camp the rule person, period effectively discussion of of this Ellcnborough to Lord to ease human is who “Whereas the crown of all usually her existence.” strange (170 eliminating any civil action on Campbell’s the being his Eng historic in a ease decided attributed to a statement made no action wrongful rule wrongful act, neglect, could not be Rep apparently act, as to the background, 1033), goods person.” at law death. One of the and chattels of he said: plaintiff’s complained lay now main Vict c see 1808. in exclu- or de Simp “In a wife In Road Commrs. v. writing su- United for the States Cardozo, Justice preme of- enactment, to a similar in relation court interpretation: judicial guide for fered in dissatisfaction have their roots “Death statutes have been traced the law which archaisms of with the opinion. origin It would course of this the to their grudging process of a narrow a misfortune be perpetuate exemplify and construction very un when are times to he remedied. There evils consistency wrought policy into are be certain words unity legislative itself a is source a which impulse generative transmitted a law, new legislature power system. legal has the ‘The policy if it shall be, law what the decide indirectly, will however will, its intimated has obeyed.’ recognized intimation is Its should be clear effects clear enough us their before now in the statutes the warrant of stifled, without shall not be policy perpetuation necessity by aof which Towing day.” v. Sabine had Van Beeck has its now 685). (57 81 L ed 452, Ct 350, 351 Co., 342, 300 US S Fortunately purposes present decision, of our present wrongful prob case this lem its does not death Ap Courtney difficult form as did most ple, recently 345 Mich which divided this Court. presumption There no here to need consider damages. tending to to There is substantial evidence
prove pecuniary injury present in the instant case.
Among important we note facts these’: family unemployable. father The de- healthy 15-year-old. intelligent ceased She proved willing worker. earned mon- She family ey toit outside the home and contributed support. performed work which household freed She family wage of this the mother as a earner. The need Beardsley, county 14,769, Muskegon No Noel circuit court son v. library.) Fox, judge. (Opinion law circuit available State *9 reasonably into the could a continuation be forecast future could daughter’s help and contribu- tion. may, suggested of course,
It be coincident preceding majority probability or would come marriage responsibilities and other which would opportunity help. pos- tend to decrease This sibility was, are certain, we as much available jurors of the as it to ours. minds is Another consid- equally experience, eration clear from human equally jurors, probability available to the is the possibility need increased for and of assistance paternal daugh- the later life when a son’s likely ter’s circumstances are in the to be more than stable days early marriage. jury $12,072. awarded Much of this sum is
justified expenses plus the funeral value up girl majority. services It obvious that the trial felt that con- legally given sideration could contri- beyond birthday butions the 21st the evidence was support jury sufficient to award. agree regard. with him in
We this not think We do beyond purpose the award went stated of the stat- legitimate ute or the limits evidence. What the jury niary injury just” compensation pecu- deemed “fair plaintiff
to this finds record. entry judgment
Reversed and remanded for appellant. based verdict. Costs to JJ., Smith, Black, Voelker, con- Kavanagh, J. with Edwards, curred (dissenting).
Carr, J. Plaintiff’s decedent sus injuries occurring tained vember in a traffic accident on No p.m., 1953,between the hours of 10 and public highway Ogemaw county. on a Pier death Road Commrs. injuries, indicating resulted following a consciousness did recover that she in which she was the automobile between collision *10 action passenger This was another vehicle. a special plaintiff, a by father, decedent’s instituted damages un estate to recover the administrator of wrongful provisions death the so-called der plaintiff that the the de It the claim of act.* was negligently the to maintain failed board fendant a highway in condition accident occurred where neg reasonably and that such thereon, for travel safe proximate ligence of the accident. cause was guilty it of that was denied Defendant answer negligence, in circuit court on tried and the case was liability question recoverable. of plaintiff’s in the favor returned verdict judgment motion for of Defendant’s $12,072. sum notwithstanding denied, but its mo- the verdict granted. Plaintiff’s motion tion for new trial was granted, limited to the should be trial, that a new damages only question Plaintiff, on was denied. of claiming granted, appealed, that the trial leave has granting trial. new was in error question appeal principal submitted on the has damages. reference matter of At the time of plaintiff’s Thompson, decedent, Elda the accident was age. years 15 claim with Plaintiff’s refer- damages resulting recoverable from death ence paragraph 13 set declaration, forth as language: following amended, in the plain- 6, 1953, “That in accident November said Thompson, inju- fatal decedent, Elda suffered tiff’s ries proximate as the result and that as the cause injuries and from died on No- said accident said accident, result of fatal 7,1953; vember that as a said injuries Thompson, Elda death, she, then § 691.581 [*] PA 1848, et seq. No 38, [Stat Ann amended Cum PA Supp 1939, § 27.711 et No [297] (CL seq.}). 1948,
being age, being her birth date December surviving following 1937,did leave heirs Thompson, age L. kin, at law or father, next John Thompson, age 63; mother, 47; Irene V. Velvae Van age Thompson, age Wormer, sister, sister, 29; Olive Bailey, Marjorie age Gifford, 26; Brown, Ellen sis- sister, 24; age age Leah ter, Thompson, 23; sister, Belle John 22; Thompson, age brother, 18; Walter broth- er, 14; father, that her and other said mother partially depend- next kin and heirs at law were upon Thompson, deceased, ent said Elda L. and that they earnings by suffered loss of her virtue death; further, the father mother minor of said were entitled her services from the time of her death until she would have attained otherwise years; plaintiff of 21 special expenses further, claims for the hospital, incurred account of the expenses doctor and burial which caused injuries, accident, these fatal and said minor child’s *11 resulting damages plaintiff death; that further the claims such just fair are with next as reference the to pecuniary by by suffered kin loss the of and/or * * * her estate. said resulting pecuniary injury reference to the “With persons may from such death to those who be entitled damages damages to recovered; such when also hospital, for the reasonable medical, funeral and bur- expenses pursuant ial for which the liable, estate is by to PA 1848, 38, No 1939, as amended PA No 297.” apparently agreed trying
It was the counsel respective parties in case circuit court for the there- language quoted fairly supported to that the a claim plaintiff pecuniary that was entitled to for injury might based on that Elda have contributions support parents, tomade the after she her reached age the fatal accident not occurred. permitted to such claim and consider presumably arrived at the returned verdict accord- ingly. judge submitting The trial in case to the jury charged as follows: Eoad Commrs. compute the value and allow “You should you may decedent, under find financial the parents, taking given testimony to case, in would have this any, need, if their into consideration support age, have become after she would for such you present determine the also testimony. you find there such worth that sum time as the # would be eration dependency death, sickness she you may and life dependency ents and tion amounts, as surviving “Now so far as [*] part would ; you [*] you expectancy that it is the determine taking computed survivor of them would have by inability fact would cease I have or into that reached find a condition of otherwise to damages that from the explained of her consideration the present to exist, allowed age, worth it contribute event be relieved you may taking condition die. you, through of these various dependency at such time as such fact that Again into consid- years, they find after period of health her own it I cau- is es- they such par- on to find.” sential motion for a trial submitted counsel new alleged, among bases,
for defendant charge other question with reference granted trial erroneous. The so concluded and indicating trial, the motion new that he consid- unnecessary pass questions on other raised ered it grounds presented motion. The other said appeal, argued by and, not been counsel consequence, express opinion we no their merit or lack of it. *12 based, on which the instant action is
The statute
wrongful
contemplates the allowance
death act,
damages
suffering,
pain
for reasonable
for
hospital,
expenses
and funeral
for which
medical,
may
for
and also
liable,
of decedent
be held
estate
“pecuniary injury”
resulting from the death to
persons
damages
entitled to the
recovered. The
damages
allowance of
in a case of this nature must
proofs
rest on the
of the
basis
submitted on the trial..
This Court so held in Baker v. Slack,
from his Thompson, “Q. Mr. Mr. (By van do Benscholen): you planned your daughter know what graduate high she would school? going place “A. She to take mother’s and let mother come home. going
“Q. You mean she was work the res- taurant ? * * * “A. Yes. agreeable plan, Elda Was sir? “Q. *13 Road Commrs. her her mother Yes, “A. and nsed talk about it. just to tell used her mother she could cook She as good could. as she your going “Q. what wife, Then was she to do .at that time? * * * supposed “A. She was to come home. your daughter, “Q. At death of the time Thompson, you help Mr. in need of her both services and contributions? * * * “A. Yes. (By Benschoten): Thomp- “Q. Now, Mr. van Mr. your opinion, family son, under circumstances you you them here, have described would your daughter’s money been in need of services contributions even after reached she years if she had lived? Objected incompetent.
“Mr. Smith: “The Court: Answer. to as “A. Yes.”
The record discloses that Elda had 5 sisters younger a brother older than she, also brother. appear It does not that children, of the older they majority, after in to reached their had contributed any appreciable plaintiff’s support amount to Thompson. plaintiff that Mrs. In stated fact, specifically they had not to him. contributed they Whether were able to or would have so, do ability conjecture such under the in the future, matter of is
testimony in the case. disputed It is not that the were entitled injuries pecuniary to them in for the sustained
being deprived earn- Elda’s services and prior ings reaching to her 21, less reasonable cost of care, and educa- maintenance, prior tion to that time. She was the date high grade the accident a in the 10th of a student school, and it a fair inference from record is purpose that it Elda complete high that she would course. The school Michigan Reposts. graduated plan when so-called high she had job in the school would take mother’s home, the latter could return restaurant, so only merely unsupported tentative but *14 any by proof arrangement that such an was to be permanent beyond should extend character, or minority. daughter’s nothing testimony There in us, before in- cluding justify excerpts quoted, therefrom above tu a conclusion that the had undertaken 15-year-old daughter by agreement to bind their an earnings support to contribute her to their after majority, contemplated her she reached or that Elda any majority Obviously attaining such situation. if on she mapped
followed the course out older sisters, such contributions would been made. The show Elda that in assisted ordinary housework, that occasions she “baby-sitting” did for others for which she received money. appear It does not that the so amount earned per part week, exceeded claimed, $5 of which she, as it is gave to her mother. It must borne in 15-year-old girl scarcely mind also that in this position by any agreement to bind herself definite ap- as her future. As before it stated, does not pear merely that undertook she to do so. She was accordingly. a normal child and conducted herself showing by plaintiff The constitute made is not sufficient to
proof years, attaining that in later majority, any obligation support she would assume parents by earnings contributions from have. Neither it be assumed proceedings compel at time instituted to plain- the children to contribute to any obligation resulting or of their tiff, mother, so solely would have rested on Elda. Cooper
In v. Lake & M. Shore Co., S. R. Mich (11 Rep 482), brought Am St the action was Cqmmbs. Eoab damages negligently cansing recover the death age. girl Verdict was returned plaintiff of $1,550. for the the sum Defendant appealed, asserting trial that the inwas error question submitting jury to the sustained child pecuniary they would, the loss of benefit save earnings for her death, have received from her for the probable criticizing the balance of her life. In charge given, pointed (p 270) as out Court permitted speculate upon that it the fu- probabilities possi- ture and consider “the or the contingen- unknown and bilities its unknowable following excerpt opinion cies.” The from the in- (pp dicates the conclusion reached the Court 272): jury, every “The statute authorizes the case give
of this amount kind, to *15 they just persons shall to the deem fair who may be entitled to the same when recovered. Under giving in this statute are not warranted damages upon testimony, beyond not founded compensation injury the measure of for the inflicted. They give damages upon fancy, cannot founded their upon visionary probabilities or based estimates of damages in or chances. The rule of actions apply kind. torts does to actions this gives right damages; but it been statute has exceptions, they must held, rare be confined capable damages a being to those which are meas- pecuniary Cooley, (1st ured Torts standard. ed), p in 271, cited note 2. cases brought “In under the statute, actions where the parents persons damages, are the entitled the deceased had been in the evidence shows that making contributions from his the habit of own might damages parents, their be based means his customary upon the and estimated contributions Chicago jury. proven & before N. W. deceased 500 Bayfield, (16 Neg 87). R. Mich Am Co. Cas applicable very But rule is not in the case
young any child who made has never contributions,, impossible and whom it is to show ever will.” parents In the case at bar the to- of' entitled earnings of Elda until she reached the charged support- obligation 21, and were with the ing her. The small amount that earned and parents shared with her mother the were entitled to- receive. She made no contribution from her own obviously position means, and she was not in to- presented do so. The situation that have been past majority had she lived her a matter of con- jecture only. difficulty presenting proof re- lating possibilities justify to future does not the al- damages proof- lowance of in the absence of such jury may permitted speculate A not be and allow damages on the basis of sentiment. Radley,
In Morris v. 306 Mich were- sought years for the death of a child than less of' age. There was no basis the record for al lowance of based on contributions- majority, might attaining that the child, after made to her have- parents, and this Court held that the- properly recovery trial court limited the of dam and, ages hospital, expenses, to medical, and funeral earnings deceased’s future contributions birthday, until her 21st less the reasonable expenses incurred in the child’s- Radley ap maintenance. Morris v. was cited with proval Colburn, followed Covell v. 308 Mich 240. Plaintiff’s decedent in that case was 15 at the time of the accident in which she re *16 injuries. proof fatal ceived There was no on which finding past to a base that had she lived the during majority, 21 she would her then, have made- parents. contributions to her v. Eoad Commrs. appellant have directed attention to Counsel Borg-Warner Corporation, Mich 313. Judis brought There the action was the as ad- father 23-year-old of the estate his son. The ministrator attaining majority indicated that his after helped had father on latter’s farm, the son his the support and of also contributed his had the sum approximately per par- month. the $25 Under proofs, involved, ticular facts it the established although voluntarily held the that, was son obligation assisting assumed the out his father with- any requiring court order to do so, him the parent, physically incapacitated, who en- titled to allowance of for his loss support by contributions adult to him for made his reaching In son. such conclusion the Court (p 326) quoted approval Laning, with from Clinton v. 355, 360, Mich as follows: “ voluntary assumption think ‘We of this duty may fairly obligation, regarded performing legal as be a expenditures proper and that extent, by compul- within the limit which could be laid down charges they sion, are as valid as had been com- pelled, on considered similar ” footing.’ holding point in the Judis Case is not in under the facts involved the matter now before us, being decision Court there based what was actually being done the adult at the time son plan par- of his death not on claimed during minority. ent made the son’s acquiescence, here could not Elda, bind even her particular follow course conduct majority. Because of her fact that she parental was under control, could bind her- by any express agreement support, self or con- tribute of, after she *17 502 357 noted, however, 21. before the of As
reached arrangement appear was that such it does parents. actually her Elda and made between testimony plain- “plan” the of so far the related, minority. daughter’s only to the indicates, tiff appellant Attention is directed to counsel par- from other which decisions States under the recog- to ticular and facts involved are statutes said right damages for nize the to recover future attaining majority, a decedent, after contributions parent dependent. Typical a of to other such Pennsylvania Bohrman Co., cases is v. R. NJ (93 190). Super sought A2d There girl parents of a on behalf of the and 7 alleged negligent months of killing. at of her the time proofs parents owned disclosed the operated, help daughter, with the of their a daughter graduated beauty shop, that the from high nearly completed school and had a course in beauty contemplated that it school, culture was parties the that the business the was daughter to be turned over the who was to as- operation. The court concluded that the sume its proofs justified question submitting jury allowing damages for loss contributions daughter attaining after her the majority, earnings during loss
as well as the minority. proofs The court concluded expectancy” there contri- “reasonable plaintiff that the butions, had established parents’ dependency claim of the services earnings daughter. daugh- of their The fact that the naturally ter ter was to receive business was mat- sufficiency suggested, consideration. As dispute, an to which issue as Obviously, opinions properly however, differ. developed by the in the case the situation evidence materially at from that the case bar. differed Road Commrs. excerpts quoted It will be noted that the above charge ti;ial from the the case at bar, permitted he which erroneous, concluded conjecture dependency part on the *18 parents might continue until their death, and that attaining majority, after Elda, to would continue support make contributions to their earnings from her own prevented or other unless means and until by inability part on her to death, do so due to sick- opened other ness, or The door causes. was thus speculate concerning jury possibilities of indulge assumption the future, and to in the that charged Elda the without No reference or with, have been assumed, obligation support parents sole of her from her
assistance and sisters. brothers was made contributions plaintiff’s support by charge his other children. The parents also made no distinction between the toas dependency, although proofs apparent under the it fully capable caring that Mrs. was fact, support was, herself and family. in the main judge trial concluding not in error in charge given by him was erroneous and that granted. a new trial should be in the merely ordinary case showed situation of a 15- year-old taking part child normal as member the household. No factual basis was established predicate finding on which to of a “reasonable expectancy” attaining would, she of 21, make to her or contributions to either presented by In them. view of the situation respect per- in record the court in error mitting on determine the basis majority, that decedent, lived to attain her would her made contributions for the earnings pos- from her or other means Damages may sessed her. not awarded possibilities conjectures the basis mere what as to may happen in the future. The motion for properly granted, a new trial was and the discre- declining tion the trial to limit the issues thereon to the matter should be dis- turbed. appeal
The order from which the has been taken should be affirmed. J., J., C. concurred with Dethmers, Kelly, J.
Carr, BROS., OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION v. KLEITCH INC. Process—Courts—Judgment. 1. Taxation — Claim terms of Ohio statute relative to taxation of truck- complied ers had not been that defendant trucker had *19 process issuing not been served with out of an Ohio court prior entry judgment therein, upon based defendant’s held, return, merit, without where Ohio statute contains no requirement process, the trucker be served with such summary proceeding purposes being taxation utilized (Ohio Supp 5717.02-5717.04, Rev Code Ann 5728.10, §§ 5728.12). Taxation—Highway 2. Commerce —Interstate Commerce — Main- tenance. right A State has the to tax interstate commerce reasonable relationship highways to its use of purpose the State’s for the maintaining them. Highways 3. Streets —Licenses—Taxation—Trucks. applied A highways trucker whieh use a license to Ohio jurisdiction sent its trucks over them submitted itself to the highway (Ohio of that State and its use tax law Rev Code 5717.02-5717.04, Ann Supp 5728.10, 5728.12). §§ ,[10] 12 Am [11] [1, [2] [7] 4-6, 51 Am 30A Am 11 Am 51 Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Judgments References Taxation Constitutional Law 705. Constitutional Law 125. Jur, Taxation § 2u2 el for Points § 880. § seq. 980. § § in Headnotes