When Dicta Runs Amok: Untangling PJI 2:320
Imagine a common scenario: A wrongful death case where the decedent leaves behind a spouse, two children, and a third adult child from a prior marriage…
September 21, 2020 at 02:19 PM
8 minute read
Imagine a common scenario: A wrongful death case where the decedent leaves behind a spouse, two children, and a third adult child from a prior marriage (a blended family dynamic that is hardly unusual in the 21st century). How will the losses of these four people be compensated? The Pattern Jury Instruction (PJI) for wrongful death damages, PJI 2:320, provides two sets of instructions; one to itemize the damages for the four distributees, and a second separate modification if your case happens to fall within the jurisdiction of the Second Department. The PJI Commentary suggests that dicta in a Second Department decision, Carter v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 A.D.3d 661 (2d Dept. 2008), created this split by requiring one lump sum award for four different people instead of compensating our hypothetical family individually.
A more nuanced look beyond the PJI, however, reveals that there exists no true split. Beyond the single instance of dicta from Carter, the Second Department has never taken up the lump sum approach, and the Court of Appeals in its own dicta subsequently criticized lump sum awards as contrary to the CPLR and frustrating meaningful appellate review. Furthermore, this approach does nothing more than create additional cost and work and disputes for plaintiffs and defendants alike.
The "Split" On Pecuniary Awards
In a wrongful death case, under EPTL 5-3.2, an administrator of the estate may bring an action for pecuniary damages caused by the decedent's death to the distributees. These pecuniary damages may include loss of financial support, loss of services, possible inheritance, loss of parental guidance and medical and funeral expenses incidental to death. Gonzalez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 663, 668 (1991); Milczarski v. Walaszek, 108 A.D.3d 1190, 1190 (4th Dept. 2013).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFusion Voting and Its Impact on the Upcoming Election
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250