1263, 1266 (1991). Searle held that where an award for household services is compensation for the loss of domestic ser- vices and is based on the market value of those lost services, the award is pecuni- ary, and the cap does not apply. See also, Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 353, 601 A.2d 102, 107 (1992).
Practice Tips - When Should You
Introduce Household Services Losses? Damages for lost household services can be claimed in wrongful death cases, as part of a loss of consortium claim, or as part of the economic damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, whether married or living in a multiple person household. Single persons living alone can also seek damages for loss of the household services they would have provided to themselves absent the injury. Monias v. Endal, 330 Md. 274, 285 n. 6, 623 A.2d 656, 661 n. 6 (1993). Practitioners should ask themselves in
every significant injury case whether a household service loss should be calcu- lated. Every wrongful death case in which an adult decedent lived in a household demands that the calculation be made. Likewise, a household service loss prob- ably should be calculated in every case in which the plaintiff has incurred perma- nent injury such that their work abilities and work life have been affected. I have even calculated a household service loss
in cases in which my clients have contin- ued to work at their former jobs — particularly when the plaintiff is a single or divorced person living alone, and must continue to work to support themselves. To succeed in lost household service claims, plaintiffs must be compelling wit- nesses. They must be able to convince the jury that they have accurately and conservatively estimated their inability to do work around the house. Plaintiffs must also be able to provide details of how their injuries have impacted their ability to work around the house. Finally, they must be prepared to identify specific tasks they can no longer perform.
Defense counsel usually view a house-
hold service loss with skepticism, particularly if the plaintiff has not hired individuals to perform each and every duty that the plaintiff used to perform around the house. Central to the defense’s skepticism is a belief that the uncompen- sated work performed by individuals at home has no value. Defense counsel also often suggest that the work that the plain- tiff used to do around the house can and should be picked up by other family mem- bers. Defense counsel attitudes ignore a fun- damental fact — that every individual’s work around their homes has value, both economic and personal. During 2000 the following question appeared on the MTLA Listserv:
Listmates: A conservative econo- mist I regularly work with tells me that by his lights one cannot put on a claim for the widower’s loss of the economic value of a spouse (vic- timized and killed by medical negligence) unless the spouse was holding down a paying job. There is no loss of value to the widower when the tort feasor dispatches the traditional wife at home. The economist’s point is simply that in a wrongful death action the wid- ower gets the value of the financial support measured by the working spouse’s earnings less the working spouse’s consumption. That may be economics, but does not strike me as right. Anyone have any ex- pert or authority for a value approach that does not require a working spouse? This economist’s point of view was nei- ther sound economics nor representative of the Maryland law just discussed. We all know individuals who, each year, de- cide to stay home and either forego or put on hold their careers in order to provide a better environment for their children. An individual’s work at home should be val- ued just as work outside of the home is valued. Don’t allow outdated attitudes and perceptions to result in you overlook- ing the pecuniary damage of loss of household services.
Fall 2001
Trial Reporter
11
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