Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Christina Stanley and Larry Stanley as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Michael G. Stanley

744 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. 2001) · Supreme Court of Indiana · March 26, 2001 · No. 14S01-0002-CV-114

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Indiana's wrongful-death statute permits defendants to introduce evidence of the decedent's anticipated personal consumption and maintenance expenses when calculating beneficiaries' lost-earnings damages. The court concluded that the 1965 statutory amendments did not change the longstanding rule requiring such a deduction. It reversed and remanded for a new trial, while finding no reversible error in the challenged jury instructions.

Holdings

  1. Indiana's wrongful death statute requires that lost-earnings damages be limited to the beneficiaries' actual pecuniary loss. The defendant therefore must be permitted to present evidence of the decedent's projected personal living and maintenance expenses for the jury to consider as a deduction from lost earnings.
  2. The trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing the defendant's proposed instructions concerning noncompensatory damages and damages for grief, sorrow, or wounded feelings because the substance of the proposed instructions was adequately covered by the instructions given.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Indiana's wrongful death statute permits the defendant to introduce evidence of the decedent's anticipated personal consumption and maintenance expenses as a deduction from projected lost earnings.
  2. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by refusing two proposed jury instructions concerning the compensatory nature and limits of wrongful-death damages.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (21)

  • Ed Wiersma Trucking Co. v. Pfaff, 678 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. 1997)(followed)
  • In re Estate of Pickens, 255 Ind. 119, 263 N.E.2d 151 (1970)(followed)
  • Consolidated Stone Co. v. Staggs, 164 Ind. 331, 73 N.E. 695 (1905)(followed)
  • Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Burton, 139 Ind. 357, 37 N.E. 150 (1894)(followed)
  • Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288, 23 N.E. 774 (1890)(followed)
  • Richmond Gas Corp. v. Reeves, 158 Ind. App. 338, 302 N.E.2d 795 (1973)(followed)
  • Burnett v. State, 467 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 1984)(followed)
  • State v. Bouras, 423 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)(followed)
  • New York Central R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 234 Ind. 457, 127 N.E.2d 603 (1955)(followed)
  • Henschen v. New York Central R.R. Co., 223 Ind. 393, 60 N.E.2d 738 (1945)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…