Brandon v. County of Richardson

Nebraska Supreme Court · Torts

TortsWrongful deathIntentional infliction of emotional distressDamagesAppellate reviewwrongful deathloss of societyparent-child relationship

Facts

JoAnn Brandon sued Richardson County and Sheriff Charles B. Laux in connection with the murder of her daughter, Teena Brandon, and events preceding her death. On remand, the district court found $7,000 in damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Laux's conduct and $5,000 for JoAnn's wrongful death damages for loss of society. The district court based the loss-of-society amount on evidence that, despite the existence of a parent-child relationship, the relationship had become strained and distrustful before Brandon's death. It based the IIED amount on evidence that although Brandon was upset after Laux's interview, her distress was driven primarily by Lotter and Nissen and the rape and threats against her life.

Issue

Whether the district court's awards of $5,000 for JoAnn's loss of society, comfort, and companionship and $7,000 for Brandon's emotional distress caused by Laux were so inadequate that they were clearly wrong. More broadly, the question was whether those awards were supported by competent evidence and bore a reasonable relationship to the damages proved.

Rule

The amount of damages is for the fact finder, and an appellate court will not disturb that determination if it is supported by the evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of damages proved. In a wrongful death action for the death of a child, a parent is entitled to damages for loss of society, comfort, and companionship once the parent-child relationship is shown to exist, but the amount is determined case by case because there is no exact fiscal formula. In a bench trial under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong; an award is set aside as inadequate only when it is so inadequate as to result from passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Omaha, Nora Velez brought a wrongful death action after her 22-year-old son, Eli, was killed by a municipal sanitation truck operated by Prairie Bend Public Works. At a bench trial, the judge found Nora and Eli had remained in contact but that their relationship had become distant after repeated conflicts, and awarded $4,000 for Nora’s loss of society, comfort, and companionship.

If Nora appeals arguing the award is legally inadequate because a parent-child relationship was proved, how should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that once a parent-child relationship is proved, the surviving parent is entitled to damages for loss of society, comfort, and companionship because the relationship has intrinsic value. But there is no exact fiscal formula; the amount depends on the facts of the particular relationship. In a bench trial, the appellate court defers unless the finding is clearly wrong, and a modest award may be upheld if supported by competent evidence and reasonably related to the proved elements.