Survival actions: Under-deterrence,


pain and suffering, and punitive damages California is in the minority of jurisdictions in not allowing recovery of a decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering in a survival action


By Gregory P. Waters A commercial aircraft


Waters


carrying over 100 passen- gers loses control and plummets to earth over the course of no less than 30 seconds. During this time the passengers are aware they are going to die violently. They are


killed at the moment of impact. This is not the first time this particular aircraft has experienced such a loss of control. The aircraft manufacturer and a compo- nent-part manufacturer have been aware for years that a component in the aircraft is prone to a failure that causes such a loss of control, leading to catastrophic results. The particular failure mode has been shown to have been the cause of several prior crashes of passenger air- craft, resulting in the death of hundreds of passengers.


56 — The Advocate Magazine JANUARY 2012 Under these facts, the defendants


have arguably engaged in a conscious dis- regard of the probability that their con- duct will lead to the injury – or more likely death, given the nature of their product – of members of the flying public. California law provides that such conduct supports a finding of malice necessary for the imposi- tion of punitive damages. (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 810; see also, Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. (1980) 297 N.W.2d 727, 732, fn. 1 [listing cases from multiple jurisdictions]). But because of certain features of California law, defendants will argue that punitive damages do not apply because punitive damages are not recoverable in a wrong- ful-death action; and since the passengers were killed instantly, there can be no basis for a survival action upon which to base a punitive-damages claim. California law is in the minority of


jurisdictions allowing recovery of only the


decedent’s pre-death pecuniary losses, and expressly excluding recovery for pain, suffering and disfigurement. (Stencel Aero Eng’g Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 978.) But pre- death pain and suffering is available in federal courts under federal causes of action such as the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), The Jones Act, and civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 brought in the Central District of California. In §1983 actions, the Eastern District follows California law and does not allow recovery of pre-death pain and suffering, while the Northern and Southern Districts have competing dis- trict court opinions on the issue. The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed this issue. Also, any federal survival claims under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) preclude pre-death pain and suffering, and are limited to the dece- dent’s pecuniary loss. For actions brought


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96