 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goddard v. Munson8/14/1991
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
CA No. A64772
1991.OR.40748 ; 108 Or. App. 342; 816 P.2d 619
Filed: August 14, 1991.
MARGIE A. GODDARD, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARC E. GODDARD, DECEASED. RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN MUNSON, APPELLANT, AND HELEN FOLEY, DEFENDANT
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County. No. 88C-10733; Albin W. Norblad, Judge.
Keith J. Bauer, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Billy M. Sime and Parks, Bauer & Sime, Salem.
Carl R. Amala, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were J.P. Harris, II, and Law Office of J.P. Harris, II, P.C., Salem.
Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
Richardson
Plaintiff, the mother of Marc Goddard and personal representative of his estate, brought this wrongful death action against defendant Munson. The decedent, who had recently completed his senior year in high school, died as the result of a collision between his vehicle and one that defendant was driving while intoxicated shortly after drinking at three or four taverns. The case was tried to a jury, which awarded damages for plaintiff's loss of services, society and companionship and for pecuniary loss to the decedent's estate. The jury also assessed punitive damages. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment, and we affirm.
Defendant's first assignment asserts that the court erred by denying his motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiff's claim for loss of services, society and companionship. He contends that plaintiff did not prove damages, because she offered no evidence of her age or life expectancy. The parties offer out-of-state authority for their differing positions on whether any evidence was necessary and, if so, whether the evidence presented was sufficient. No Oregon case that the parties or we find is squarely on point.
ORS 30.020(2) provides, in part:
"In an action under this section damages may be awarded in an amount which:
"* * * * *
"(c) Justly, fairly and reasonably compensates for pecuniary loss to the decedent's estate;
"(d) Justly, fairly and reasonably compensates the decedent's spouse, children and parents for pecuniary loss and for loss of the society, companionship and services of the decedent * * *."
The language of ORS 30.020(2)(d) lends no apparent support to the necessary premise of defendant's argument, which is that loss of services, society and companionship is compensable only if it can be temporally calibrated. Even assuming that premise, however, there was evidence from which the jury could make the necessary inferences: The years that plaintiff, her daughter and the decedent attended school were in evidence; there was conflicting evidence about plaintiff's health; and the jury saw plaintiff throughout the trial. Nothing more specific was necessary for plaintiff to carry any burden that she may have had. Defendant was of course free to offer any more specific relevant evidence that he might have had, but he is mistaken in asserting that the evidence that he describes was essential to plaintiff's proof rather than a matter for rebuttal. We reject the first assignment.
Defendant's second assignment is somewhat similar. He contends that the court erred by denying a directed
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|