Parilis v. Feinberg, 59 N.Y.2d 983 (1983)

In a wrongful death action involving a child, the absence of direct, quantifiable proof of pecuniary loss does not automatically limit recovery to nominal damages; the jury may infer pecuniary loss from the child’s age, character, condition, and the circumstances of the distributees.

Summary

This case addresses the calculation of damages in a wrongful death action involving a 12-year-old boy. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have been limited to nominal damages due to a lack of concrete evidence of pecuniary loss. The Court of Appeals held that, particularly in cases involving young children, juries are permitted to infer pecuniary loss based on factors such as the child’s age, character, and the circumstances of the family, even without direct evidence of financial contributions. The court affirmed the jury’s award, emphasizing that evaluating pecuniary loss in such cases is squarely within the jury’s purview.

Facts

The decedent, a 12-year-old boy, died due to negligence. The plaintiff, acting on behalf of the decedent’s estate, brought a wrongful death action. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of the boy’s age, character, and condition, as well as the circumstances of his family. The jury awarded $50,000 for wrongful death and $25,000 for conscious pain and suffering (later reduced to $15,000).

Procedural History

The trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed to limit the wrongful death award to nominal damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether, in a wrongful death action involving a child, the absence of direct, quantifiable evidence of pecuniary loss requires the jury to be instructed that the plaintiff is limited to recovering nominal damages only.

Holding

No, because in wrongful death actions, especially those involving children, the absence of direct proof of pecuniary loss does not relegate the distributees to nominal damages only; calculation of pecuniary loss is a matter for the jury based on evidence of the child’s age, character, condition, and the circumstances of the distributees.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing that damages in a wrongful death action are limited to “pecuniary injuries” suffered by the decedent’s distributees, including loss of support, voluntary assistance, possible inheritance, and medical/funeral expenses. The court distinguished these damages from those recoverable in a personal injury action had the decedent survived. The court acknowledged the difficulty in providing direct evidence of pecuniary loss, particularly in cases involving young children. The court relied on prior precedent, stating, “in any wrongful death action, especially one involving a child of tender years, the absence of dollars and cents proof of pecuniary loss does not relegate the distributees to recovery of nominal damages only.” The court emphasized that calculating pecuniary loss is squarely within the jury’s province. The jury could infer pecuniary loss from evidence regarding the decedent’s age, character, condition, and the circumstances of the distributees. Citing Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 NY 504, 508, the court concluded that because there was sufficient evidence to premise the award, the jury’s evaluation could not be disturbed as a matter of law.