Brooks v. Hannan

53 Va. Cir. 465, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 492
CourtCharlottesville County Circuit Court
DecidedNovember 22, 2000
DocketCase No. (Law) 98-64
StatusPublished

This text of 53 Va. Cir. 465 (Brooks v. Hannan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Charlottesville County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooks v. Hannan, 53 Va. Cir. 465, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 492 (Va. Super. Ct. 2000).

Opinion

By Judge Edward L. Hogshire

In this wrongful death settlement, conflict has arisen concerning the distribution of $298,443.23, which constitutes the remainder of a settlement for $600,000.00. The general receiver of this Court is holding the funds.

Authority of this Court to Distribute the Remaining Funds

This Court is authorized to specify the distribution of the proceeds of this wrongful death settlement pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-54. Wrongful death matters in Virginia are statutory in nature and, as a result, “any distribution of the funds recovered for a tortious killing committed in this State must be in accord with th[e] statute creating the right of action.” Winthrow v. Edwards, 181 Va. 344, 354 (1943).

Virginia Code § 8.01-53 specifies those persons who are beneficiaries of a wrongful death settlement as well as the damages that are compensable. The statute indicates that damages shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: sorrow, mental anguish, and solace, which may include society, [466]*466companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices and advice of the decedent; compensation for reasonably expected loss of (1) income of the decedent and (2) services, protection, care and assistance provided by the decedent. Virginia Code § 8.01-52. Being remedial, the statute is to be construed broadly. See Hewitt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 490 F. Supp. 1358, 1366 (E.D. Va. 1980). Specifically, damages that are “fair and just” are to be awarded and these terms are to be given broad and liberal construction. See Sawyer v. United States, 465 F. Supp. 282, 292 (E.D. Va. 1978).

Unlike a personal estate passing under the intestate law, which is a fund to be distributed equally among members of the same class, damages in wrongful death actions should be awarded independently and separately to the statutory beneficiaries according to their respective damages. See Carroll v. Snead, 211 Va. 640, 644 (1971).

Findings of Fact

Gary Brooks, Ruth Giacometti, and Kathie Wade are the sole living, natural children of Lawrence Brooks, and are statutory beneficiaries pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act (“Act”).

Birdie Brooks is the widow of the decedent and a statutory beneficiary pursuant to the Act.

Janey Fridley is the adopted daughter of the decedent and is a beneficiary pursuant to the Act. Lawrence adopted Janey when she was three years old; she is now thirty-five years of age.

Jeffrey Brooks, U, is the grandson of the decedent and is a beneficiary pursuant to the Act.

Lawrence Brooks was hospitalized at the University of Virginia Medical Center from June 4,1997, to January 1998, at which time he was transferred to Avante Nursing Home in Waynesboro, Virginia, where he lived until his death on April 19, 1998.

Gary Brooks managed his father’s affairs during the last year of Lawrence’s life, incurring some personal expense, inconvenience, and emotional distress. Over the last ten years of Lawrence’s life, Gary Brooks and his father talked monthly and visited each other every two months.

Gary, Ruth, and Kathie devoted time and effort to care for and support their father during the last eleven months of his life. Gary, Ruth, and Kathie frequently called to check on their father’s status during the last year of his life. Gary and his wife made almost daily trips to the hospital in Charlottesville, Virginia, from their home in Richmond, Virginia, near the end of the decedent’s life.

[467]*467Gary Brooks witnessed firsthand the steady, daily decline of his father’s health, and the experience was emotionally exhausting.

Ruth Giacometti traveled from Tennessee to spend two weeks caring for her father near the end of Lawrence’s life. Ruth was with Lawrence upon his final admission to the hospital. Ruth Giacometti was close to her father and she suffered sorrow, mental anguish, and grief as a result of his death.

Gary Brooks and Ruth Giacometti attended the viewing and funeral held for Lawrence.

Kathie Wade left home at the age of twelve due in large part to her father’s problems with alcohol and abusive behavior. During most of her adult life, Kathie Wade spoke to her father occasionally. Before Lawrence’s death, Kathie invited him several times to visit her family in Atlanta. Kathie Wade spent several weeks helping to care for Lawrence while he was hospitalized in 1997. Kathie Wade suffered sorrow, mental anguish, and grief as a result of Lawrence’s death.

Kathie Wade was admitted to an alcohol treatment facility before her father’s death where she could not have visitors; she was at this facility when her father died and was unable to attend the viewing and the funeral.

During the last eleven months of his life, Birdie Brooks and Janey Fridley did not care for Lawrence or make any effort to visit him or talk to him on a regular basis.

Birdie Brooks visited the University of Virginia Medical Center on one occasion in an attempt to obtain her husband’s truck, which he had lent to his daughter, Kathie Wade. Birdie Brooks never visited Lawrence at Avante Nursing Home, despite the fact that her place of employment at the time was located two blocks from the Home.

Birdie Brooks and Janey Fridley did not attend the viewing or funeral for Lawrence, although they knew about it.

Lawrence was an alcoholic and often physically and emotionally abused Birdie Brooks. He once gave her a black eye. For approximately ten years before Lawrence’s death, Birdie Brooks did not regularly live with Lawrence. Birdie purchased a camper trailer and lived behind Lawrence’s house in the trailer. She prepared meals, slept, and performed most of her activities of daily living in the trailer. The trailer had a separate bedroom and bathroom as well as its own kitchen facilities and television.

Before Birdie Brooks purchased the camper trailer, she had her own separate bedroom inside Lawrence’s house. Birdie Brooks worked throughout her entire marriage to Lawrence. In the last five years, she has been working approximately forty hours per week. Birdie Brooks now receives Lawrence’s pension from Dupont consisting of $360.00 per month. Before Lawrence’s [468]*468death, Birdie did not receive any of the benefits of Lawrence’s pension. Birdie Brooks has no significant disabilities or medical impairments, other than minor back pain. She continues to work forty hours per week. Lawrence did not spend time with Birdie Brooks while he was living and healthy and their marriage was highly dysfunctional, without mutual affection.

Birdie Brooks remained wed to Lawrence for thirty-three years notwithstanding his abusive behavior. As a result of Lawrence’s death, Birdie lost some protection, care and assistance as well as nominal financial support. Birdie Brooks took two weeks off from work in order to care for Lawrence at his home during his illness. Birdie Brooks has suffered minimal loss of income, support or services as a result of Lawrence’s death. Birdie was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on Lawrence’s life, she inherited Lawrence’s home and property, and she now receives Lawrence’s Dupont pension, which he did not share with Birdie prior to his death.

Janey Fridley often witnessed the effects of Lawrence’s alcoholism and his abusive behavior toward Birdie Brooks.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Acuar v. Letourneau
531 S.E.2d 316 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2000)
McNeir v. Greer-Hale Chinchilla Ranch
74 S.E.2d 165 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1953)
Carroll v. Sneed
179 S.E.2d 620 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1971)
Matthews v. Hicks, Adm'r.
87 S.E.2d 629 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
Sawyer v. United States
465 F. Supp. 282 (E.D. Virginia, 1978)
Hewitt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
490 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D. Virginia, 1980)
Withrow v. Edwards
25 S.E.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Va. Cir. 465, 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-hannan-vacccharlottesv-2000.