Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980 · Torts

TortsDamagesWrongful deathLost future earningsfuture earningsproductivityinflationtotal offset

Facts

The decedent, a twenty-year-old student in computer operations, died in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle operated by appellee. At the damages retrial, witnesses described him as healthy, industrious, and motivated, and the placement director at his school testified about the salary ranges for which he would have been qualified after training. Appellant sought to present an economist, Dr. Slesinger, to project decedent's future earning capacity, including a 4% annual increment reflecting inflation and productivity gains. The trial court allowed present-value testimony generally but barred use of that annual increment under its reading of Havens, so appellant did not use the economist and relied instead on the court's charge, which instructed the jury to discount net future earnings to present value at 6% simple interest.

Issue

Did the trial court err in excluding reliable economic testimony concerning the effects of inflation and increased productivity on the decedent's future earning power? More broadly, should Pennsylvania continue to ignore inflation and productivity and discount lost future earnings to present value in calculating tort damages?

Rule

In Pennsylvania, damages for lost future earnings must compensate the victim to the full extent of the injury sustained. Upon proper foundation, the court shall consider the victim's lost future productivity, and as a matter of law future inflation is presumed equal to future interest rates, so those factors offset each other and courts are to abandon discounting lost future earnings to present value.

🔒

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 a wrongful death action in Pittsburgh, 29-year-old warehouse supervisor Daniel Mora was killed in a truck collision. At the damages trial, the judge instructed the jury to calculate Daniel's net future earnings over his work-life expectancy and then reduce that amount to present value using 6% simple interest.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest objection to the instruction?

Explanation. The majority held that for lost future earnings, future inflation and future interest rates are presumed equal as a matter of law, so courts must abandon discounting such awards to present value. The old 6% present-value method is rejected in this context. The plaintiff need not prove a separate inflation rate, and future earnings remain recoverable if supported by a reasonable basis for calculation.