 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wynn v. Estate of Holmes8/20/1991
nt is not given an offsetting credit for the "value" of the plaintiffs' use of the money during the four-and-one-half-year period. In support of this theory the defendant placed in evidence an exhibit setting out the interest the plaintiffs could have received had the $47,148.57 been placed in certificates of deposit during the subject period.
The defendant relies on a footnote in Morris v. Sanchez, 746 P.2d 184 (Okl. 1987), which refers to a so-called "benefit" rule the court cited but did not apply. Factually, Morris does not deal with the type of issue we have here. Its primary holding is that "plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action for negligent sterilization may not recover the costs of raising a healthy, normal, but unplanned child as an element of damage." Id. at 189.
The only legal doctrine which could have any application at all in this case is the "Collateral Source Rule." In regard to it, the court said in Burk Royalty Co. v. Jacobs, 387 P.2d 638 (Okl. 1963): "We have many times held that a payment to plaintiffs from a source wholly independent of and not in behalf of the wrongdoer cannot inure to the benefit of the wrongdoer to lessen the damages recoverable from him. . . ."
That is the first thing. The second thing is there is no evidence here as to the existence of a fund as such. There is evidence that the plaintiffs had sufficient money to pay the tax in 1980, but none was set aside specifically for that purpose. Indeed, according to Holmes, there was no reason to do so. After that the plaintiffs' liquidity declined right along with the price of oil - the source of their income - and when the tax deficiency was finally assessed, the plaintiffs had to borrow money to pay it. As we will shortly see, this is the reason the trial court awarded them pre-judgment interest.
The second proposition of error is without merit.
IV
Finally, the defendant says it was error for the trial court to award the plaintiffs pre-judgment interest under 12 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 727 .
The argument is that the legislature did not intend "to extend the operation of the statute to judgments for damages for every `act or omission' of any kind or character."
That may or may not be true. But what the legislature clearly did intend to do, and did do, was extend the reach of the statute to "a verdict for damages by reason of . . . injury to personal rights including . . . detriment due to an act or omission of another."
Since the verdict in this case falls within the purview of § 727(A)(2), the trial court correctly awarded the plaintiffs pre-judgment interest.
V
The judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.
REIF, P.J., concurs.
MEANS, J., concurs in result.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|