 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alsenz v. Clark Co. School Dist.11/24/1993
robable support, companionship, society, comfort and consortium, and damages for pain, suffering or disfigurement of the decedent. The proceeds of any judgment for damages awarded under this subsection are not liable for any debt of the decedent. 5. The damages recoverable by the personal representatives of a decedent on behalf of his estate include: (a) Any special damages, such as medical expenses, which the decedent incurred or sustained before his death; and funeral expenses; and (b) Any penalties that the decedent would have recovered if he had lived, but do not include damages for pain, suffering or disfigurement of the decedent. The proceeds of any judgment for damages awarded under this subsection are liable for the debts of the decedent unless exempted by law.
On appeal, Alsenz claims that the damages described in subsection five are not exclusive of those recoverable by the estate. Specifically, she claims that NRS 41.085(5) contemplates recov
[109 Nev. 1062, Page 1065]
ery for the decedent's lost economic opportunities and punitive damages.
We disagree. This court has long held that statutes should be given their plain meaning. McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors, 102 Nev. 644, 648, 730 P.2d 438, 441 (1986). In addition, statutory interpretation should avoid absurd or unreasonable results. See Sheriff v. Smith, 91 Nev. 729, 733, 542 P.2d 440, 443 (1975); Presson v. Presson, 38 Nev. 203, 210, 147 P. 1081, 1083 (1915).
The reasonable interpretation of NRS 41.085(4) and (5) concludes that the estate's recovery cannot include lost economic opportunities of the decedent or punitive damages. Nothing in either subsection indicates otherwise. Moreover, subsection four states that the heirs have a right to recover for “loss of probable support.” This element of damages translates into, and is often measured by, the decedent's lost economic opportunity. Surely the estate could not recover the same type of damage under subsection five. This would amount to double recovery, an unreasonable result.
In addition, the legislative history pertinent to NRS 41.085 indicates that the list of damages in subsection five was not intended to be expansive. February 14, 1979 amendments to the wrongful death act show the words “without limitations,” appearing in the first sentence of subsection five, were stricken from the original draft and the colon was reinserted just after the word “include.” Amendments S.B. 99, Committee on Judiciary (February 14, 1979). Hence, enumeration of the estate's recoverable damages experienced a critical change.
Before the amendment, the sentence read as follows: The damages recoverable by the personal representatives of a decedent on behalf of his estate include without limitation: . . . . (Emphasis added.)
In its present form, appearing in NRS 41.085(5), the estate's recoverable damages are characterized by the amended sentence: The damages recoverable by the personal representatives of a decedent on behalf of his estate include:. . . . (Emphasis added.)
In view of these changes, the legislature intentionally clamped down on a wide-open damages provision applicable to an estate.
In this same wave of 1979 amendments, the legislature also struck “punitive and exemplary damages” from the list of an
[109 Nev. 1062, Page 1066]
estate's recoverable items. Amendments S.B. 99. Committee on Judiciary (February 14, 1979). With this action, the legislature specifically rejected an estate's ability to recover punitive damages under the wrongful death act.
In the instant appeal, Alsenz's wrongful death claim for the decedent's lost future inc
Page 1 2 3 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|