Griffey v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

This is an appeal from an order granting defendant a new trial in an action wherein plaintiffs, as the heirs of Gladys Rhodes Griffey, a married woman, sue defendant, under section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to recover damages for the death of Mrs. Griffey alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The plaintiff Roy Griffey is the surviving husband, and the plaintiffs Pred Rhodes and Margaret Rhodes are, respectively, the father and mother of the deceased. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiffs for the sum of ten thousand dollars, and likewise made answer to certain special interrogatories which had been submitted to them. The questions submitted and the jury’s answers thereto were as follows: “1. Q. How much pecuniary damage, if any, do you find that Roy B. Griffey suffered by reason of the death of his wife? A. One thousand [dollars]. 2. Q. How much pecuniary damage, if any, do you find that Pred Rhodes suffered by reason of the death of the deceased? A. Eight thousand [dollars], 3. Q. How much pecuniary damage, if any, do you find that Margaret Rhodes suffered by reason of the death of the deceased? A. One thousand [dollars].”

On the same day that the general verdict was rendered and the answers to the special questions were returned, the clerk entered a judgment against defendant for ten thousand dollars. This judgment made mention of the general verdict only. Within twenty-four hours after the rendition of the verdict, the trial court, on defendant’s motion, vacated that judgment and entered a judgment against defendant which, after reciting the general verdict, the special interrogatories and the jury’s answers thereto, ad

[1] It is objected that the court had no authority to set aside the first and direct the entry of the second judgment. Whether the court possessed the right to vacate the first judgment and cause the second to be entered was not a question which could be agitated on the motion for a new trial, and it is not a matter which can be considered on this appeal from the order granting the new trial. Whichever judgment was legally in force prior to,,the time when the new trial was ordered fell with the granting of the new trial.

[2] Because the order granting a new trial did not state in so many words that it was granted upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, it is claimed that it must be presumed, on thjs appeal, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the' full amount thereof—ten thousand dollars. This claim is based upon that provision of section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, since the amendment of 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 141), reads: “WTien a new trial is granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the order shall so specify; otherwise, on appeal from such order it will be presumed that the order was not based upon that ground.”

By subdivision 5 of section 657, “excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice,” is made one of the grounds for a new trial; and by subdivision 6 “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict” is made another ground for a new trial. An order granting a new trial on the ground of “excessive damages” necessarily is made under one or the other of these two subdivisions. WThether the order in the instant case was made under subdivision 6, that is, whether it was made on the ground that, irrespective of the influ

[3] Because it is declared by section 377 that in actions of this character “such damages may be given as under all the circumstances of the case may be just,” it is claimed that the amount of the award is exclusively a matter for the jury with which the trial judge may not interfere. There is not even the faintest semblance of merit in this point. There is no reason to believe that the legislature intended to place cases of this character in a special class with respect to the right of the trial court to grant a new trial upon any of the grounds enumerated in section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The right of the trial judge to grant a new trial in this class of cases when he deems the damages awarded by the jury to be excessive has received the sanction of our supreme court in a number

[4] For the foregoing reasons the order granting a new trial must be affirmed unless we can say that the trial court abused its discretion. When the action of a trial judge in granting a new trial on the ground of excessive damages comes before an appellate court, the order will not be reversed unless it plainly appears that the trial judge abused his discretion. Every intendment is to be indulged here in support of his action, and it will not be disturbed if the question of its propriety is open to debate. (Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co., supra; Harrison v. Sutter Street Ry. Co., supra.) And even though there be no conflict in the evidence as to the nature and extent of the pecuniary losses suffered by the plaintiffs, nevertheless, the probative force and effect of the evidence upon that phase of the ease is ultimately for the determination of the judge of the trial court upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. (Meinberg v. Jordan, supra.)

Nowhere in the record can we find anything to warrant the conclusion that the father suffered a pecuniary loss of eight thousand dollars, or that the mother’s actual loss was as great as one thousand dollars. The sole evidence bearing upon the matters which were proper subjects for consideration in estimating the pecuniary damages resulting to plaintiffs from the death of Mrs. Griffey was the evidence given by the father, the plaintiff Fred Rhodes, whose testimony in that regard, stated in narrative form, is substantially as follows: “I am fifty-eight years old. I have lived in Los Angeles County a year. I did not do any business here until last February, when I went into a variety store on American Avenue, in Long Beach. Gladys Rhodes Griffey was my daughter. She was married to the plaintiff Roy B. Griffey. My wife, the plaintiff Margaret Rhodes, and I separated about fifteen years ago. At the time of the accident my daughter was living with me. Her husband was a salesman for the Cadillac automobile people. My daughter was twenty-four years old at that time. She had been married four years. She had no children. She was not employed at the time of the accident. She was keeping house for me. Her husband, who was the agent for the Cadillac automobile at Santa Ana, was always at my house in Long Beach on Sundays. He came to the house for Saturday night and Sunday. Except that she kept house for me, my daughter had never worked. Oh, yes, she did some moving picture work once at a studio, but she did not work there regularly; they called her at times. She had a friend that had a studio, and that friend called

[5] The general rule in this class of eases is that the damages must be limited strictly to the pecumcury loss to the beneficiaries caused by the wrongful death. (Bond v. United Railroads, supra, 159 Cal. 279 [Ann. Cas. 1912C, 50, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 687 , 113 Pac. 366 ].) Since the amount recoverable is the pecuniary loss sustained by the beneficiaries of the statute, and since the elements which go to make up the value of a decedent’s life to the designated beneficiaries are necessarily personal in each case, in the very nature of things the assessment of damages does not admit of mathematical precision, but is left to the sound discretion of the jury, which, however, is subject to the supervisory power of the court and must be exercised in accord with the rules established for the assessment of damages in cases of this character.

The rules applicable to the instant case may be formulated substantially as follows: No damages can be given for the pain or anguish suffered by the person who is killed, the damages, as we have stated, being limited to the pecuniary loss suffered by the person or persons for whose benefit the right of action is given by reason of the death of the victim. (Bond v. United Railroads, supra, p. 277.) [6] This pecuniary loss may be a loss arising from a deprivation of something to which the statutory beneficiary would have been legally entitled if the person had lived, or it may be a pecuniary loss arising from the deprivation of something which, from all the circumstances of the particular case, it could reasonably be expected such beneficiary would have received from the deceased had his life not been taken—even though the obligation resting on the de

[7] There is a distinction between the injuries resulting to a parent from the death of a minor child and those resulting from the death of an adult child. In the case of the former the law gives to the parent the right to the child’s services and the proceeds of his labor; and the probability that the minor would remain in the service of the parent during minority, or would have permitted the parent to have the proceeds of his labor, is said to be unimportant. But this rule does not apply in the case of injuries resulting from the death of an adult child to whose services the parent has no legal right. In a suit to recover damages occasioned by the death of an adult child the plaintiff sho.uld show that there was a reasonable expectation that the parent would receive a benefit had the life of such child continued; and in the absence of a legal right to his services, such reasonable expectation of benefit to be received by the parent would depend upon the ability and will of the adult child to confer the benefit upon the parent. (Winnt v. International etc. R. Co., 74 Tex.

[8] Though one of the elements of damage which may be suffered by the parent of an adult child is the present value of such future financial assistance as the parent might reasonably expect from a continuance of the child’s life, or the present value of such future services as the parent could reasonably expect to have received had the child lived, still, in estimating the amount of such damages, it is the expectancy of life of the parent, not the life of the child, which is to be taken into consideration; for, as is usually the case, the child’s expectancy of life exceeds that of the parent. (Fordyce v. McCants, supra. See, also, Parsons v. Easton, supra.) And in estimating the pecuniary value to the parent of the services of an adult child, the jury should take into account the value of any board and lodging or other accommodations which the parent may be furnishing to the adult child, if the latter is living with his parent.

[9] Besides the pecuniary loss arising from the deprivation of direct financial assistance or from the deprivation of services, there may be, as we have said, a pecuniary loss arising from the deprivation of the “society, comfort, and protection” of the decedent. (Beeson v. Green Mountain Co., 57 Cal. 38 ; Parsons v. Easton, supra.) But while loss of society, comfort, and protection may be an element of the injury sustained by the statutory beneficiaries, it is only the pecuniary, and not the sentimental, value of such loss which may be taken into consideration in the assessment of damages. Nothing can be recovered as a solatium for wounded feelings. If the society of the deceased was of no financial value to the statutory beneficiaries, no damages can be awarded for its loss. (Dickinson v. Southern Pac. Co., 172 Cal. 730 , 731 [ 158 Pac. 183 ].) In Wales v. Pacific Electric M. Co., 130 Cal. 523 [ 62 Pac. 933 ], the court, holding that damages may not be awarded for the mere loss of society not involving some element of actual pecuniary loss, employed this language: “We have been cited to no case where the law says ‘damages may be awarded for the loss of society. ’ As we read and understand the law, it says directly to the contrary. It is essen

[10] Without doubt, the evidence in this case, if tested by the foregoing rules, shows that there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial on the ground of excessive damages. There is no evidence that the father had any reasonable expectation of direct financial benefit from a continuance of his daughter’s life. In the first pláee, there is no evidence that the daughter possessed any property or that there was any reasonable probability that she ever would acquire any property. Nor is there any evidence from which it might be inferred that the father would probably have outlived his daughter if she had not been killed in the accident. On the contrary, the probability is that the daughter, who was strong and healthy and thirty-four years younger than her father, would have outlived him but for the fatal accident. There is no evidence, therefore, to justify a reasonable expectation that if the life of the deceased had continued any pecuniary advantage would have accrued to the father, or, for that matter, to any of these plaintiffs, as an heir or possible legatee or devisee of the deceased. In the second place, there is no evidence to warrant a reasonable expectation that if the life of the deceased had continued she would have bestowed upon her father, or upon any of these plaintiffs, at any time during the remainder of her life, any direct financial assistance in the way of gifts of money or property. She was not earning any money, and there is nothing to show that there was any probability that she ever would be a wage-earner or the recipient of an income. Nor is there any evidence that she ever was accustomed to giving money or making presents to any of her family.

Unless, therefore, the daughter’s society had a very considerable pecuniary value for the father, the award of eight

The evidence is likewise lacking in definite substance with respect to the sum which the jury assessed in favor, of the mother. We are utterly unable to perceive upon what theory it was supposed that the mother suffered a loss of one thousand dollars. There is no evidence that her daughter ever gave her any sums of money. There is nothing to show that the mother ever received, or that she had any reasonable expectation of ever receiving, any financial aid or personal services from the daughter subsequently to

[11] It is not necessary to determine the reasonableness of the amount which the answers to the special interrogatories show was intended to be awarded to the husband— one thousand dollars. Since a verdict against the defendant in this class of cases must be for a single lump sum, the heirs having but a single joint cause of action (Robinson v. Western States Gas Co., supra), the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted whenever it can be seen from answers to special interrogatories that the jury has made an excessive award of damages in their assessment of the loss sustained by any one or more of the statutory beneficiaries.

The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 7, 1922.

All the Justices present concurred.

Richards, J., pro tem., and Myers, J., pro tem., were acting.