Future Economic Value in Wrongful Death Litigation
![handle is hein.journals/ohslj30 and id is 510 raw text is: FUTURE ECONOMIC VALUE IN WRONGFUL DEATH LITIGATIO~f
NORMAN LEONARD*
I. THE CONCEPT OF VALUE (PRICE) IN THE LAW OF DAMAGES
AND IN ECONOMICS
How should the courts determine the reasonably probable future earn-
ings in wrongful death cases? There is no doubt such earnings should be
included in the damages awarded,1 that proof is required,2 and that the
damages on future earnings . . should be precisely commensurate with
the ... loss, and should serve to balance it out exactly.3 The test is ...
what he [the decedent] might under all the circumstances .reasonably be
expected to earn had he remained alive . . . [Emphasis added.)
The courts have tried over a considerable period of time to include the
more important circumstances which determine future earnings, includ-
ing changes in value of money,5 the scale of wages,' likely job advance-
ment7 which occur or are clearly ascertainable up to the date of trial.
Generally, plaintiffs' attorneys have not until recently introduced evi-
dence on probable earnings after the date of trial, or expiration of exist-
ing contracts.8
Price theory in economics has a similar problem of how to include
future circumstances. Neo-classical price theory is a study in statics,
that is, it uses future circumstances only as they influence the present
conditions of supply and demand.9 The theory of prices in general, or
price levels, is more empirical and dynamic,10 and is much more useful
in studying the future circumstances which determine future earnings.
f The author wishes to express his thanks for the assistance of Mr. Richard Summerlee, a
student at Ohio Wesleyan Univeristy, (Mrs.) Karen Adkins, a student in the College of Law,
The Ohio State University, and his wife, Miriam Leonard.
* Professor of Economics, Ohio Wesleyan University; President-Elect of the American So-
ciety of Econometric Appraisers.
1 Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc., 279 F. 2d 911, 916 (2d Cir. 1960), cert. denied
359 U.S. 1000 (1960); Dickson v. Queen City Coach Co., 233 N.C. 167, 63 S.E. 2d 297 (1951);
Sutfin v. Burton, 91 Ohio App. 177, 104 N.E. 2d 53 (1951); H. OLECK, DAMAGES TO PERSONS
AND PROPERTY 966.1 (1961).
2 Revak v. Anderson, 348 Pa. 65, 33 A.2d 917 (1943); ENCYCLOPEDIA O1' NEGLIGENCE
198, (1962). 1 SUTHERLAND, DAMAGES 121, (4th Ed. 1916); Hodkinson v. Parker, 16 N.W.
2d 924 (S.D. 1944); Affolder v. New York, C & St. L. R., 79 F. Supp. 365 (E. D. Mo. 1948).
3 H. OLEC, CASES ON DAMAGES 37 (1962).
4 O'Connor v. United States, 269 F. 2d 578, 582, (2d Cir. 1959); Louisville & N.R.R. v.
Scott's Adm'r., 188 Ky 99, 220 S.W. 1066 (1920).
5 Cases cited, note 4 supra, Tullos v. Corley, 337 F. 2d 884, 887 (6th Cir. 1964); Frasier
v. Public Service Interstate Transportation Co., 244 F. 2d 668 (2d Cir. 1957).
6 Frasier v. Public Service Interstate Transportation Co., 244 F. 2d 668 (2d Cir. 1957).
7 M/v El Salvadore - Tug Russell No. 18, 1966 A.M.C. 1777, 1797 (1966).
8 Rogow v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 547 (S.D. New York 1959).
9 p. SAMUELSON, EcoNoMics 65 (6th ed. 1965).
10 p. TRESCOTr, MONEY, BANKING AND ECONOMICS WELFARE 8-13 (1965).
502](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ohslj30&div=33&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Future Economic Value in Wrongful Death Litigation
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most