Selders v. Armentrout

Supreme Court of Nebraska · 1974 · Torts

220 N.W.2d 222 (1974)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsWrongful deathDamagesJuror misconductEvidencepecuniary losssociety and companionshipjury discretion

Facts

Earl and Ila Selders sought damages for the wrongful deaths of their three minor children, who died from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, the parents were divorced, custody had been awarded to Mrs. Selders, and the children lived with her. Medical and hospital expenses for two of the children totaled $297.10, and funeral expenses for all three totaled $3,395. The evidence showed the children had made no earnings contributions other than to their own support, and evidence about the family's other children showed they had contributed very little of a pecuniary nature to their parents after becoming self-supporting.

Issue

Whether the jury's wrongful death damage awards were so inadequate that they should be set aside, whether the trial court erred in admitting documents from the parents' divorce proceedings, and whether the verdicts should be overturned because of alleged juror misconduct and nondisclosure during voir dire.

Rule

In wrongful death actions involving minor children, damages for the parents' pecuniary loss, including the value of society and companionship, cannot be computed with exactness and are largely for the jury to approximate from all the circumstances. A trial court has discretion to admit evidence that has some relevancy to rebut testimony about conduct and family relationships. A challenge to a juror may be waived by failure to pursue further inquiry when the juror's answer puts counsel on notice, and juror affidavits may not be used to impeach a verdict based on matters that inhere in the verdict, including jurors' discussion of matters drawn from personal experience.

🔒

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 and Devin Cole sue for the wrongful death of their 12-year-old son after liability has already been established. They prove the child was affectionate and did chores around the house, but there is no evidence he ever earned wages or made financial contributions to his parents, and the jury returns a modest damages award.

If the parents move for a new trial arguing the award is legally inadequate because the loss of a child is immense, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that in a wrongful death action involving a minor child, the parents' pecuniary loss—including society and companionship—is not subject to exact calculation and is largely for the jury to approximate after hearing all the circumstances. A modest verdict is not inadequate as a matter of law merely because the loss is tragic. The key question is whether the verdict is supportable under the evidence, not whether the court would have awarded more.