Cecil Riley Royal, Stalco, Inc., and Zero Refrigerated Lines v. Arline v. Selfridge

Ninth Circuit

Cecil Riley Royal, Stalco, Inc., and Zero Refrigerated Lines v. Arline v. Selfridge

335 F.2d 453, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4684

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 1964

Docket19136_1

StatusPublished

This text of 335 F.2d 453 (Cecil Riley Royal, Stalco, Inc., and Zero Refrigerated Lines v. Arline v. Selfridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cecil Riley Royal, Stalco, Inc., and Zero Refrigerated Lines v. Arline v. Selfridge, 335 F.2d 453, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4684 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from a judgment entered in favor of a decedent’s widow in a wrongful death action, asserting that the amount awarded is unsupported by any evidence of substantial pecuniary loss, and is excessive as a matter of law.

The decedent and appellee had lived apart for some time prior to the accident, and he had not contributed substantially to her support. Appellants contend that under California law damage for loss of future support is not measured by the support which it was decedent’s duty to furnish, but by the support which it was reasonable to expect the widow would in fact have received. Even if we assume appellants are correct as to the law, we are satisfied that there was evidence from which the district court could conclude as a matter of fact that decedent and ap-pellee had determined to re-establish a common home, and that at the time of her husband’s death there was a reasonable expectation that he would in the future furnish her the support appropriate to his income. We do not understand appellants to suggest that if this premise were accepted the amount awarded would nonetheless be excessive; and in any event we are satisfied that it would not.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from a judgment entered in favor of a decedent’s widow in a wrongful death action, asserting that the amount awarded is unsupported by any evidence of substantial pecuniary loss, and is excessive as a matter of law.

The decedent and appellee had lived apart for some time prior to the accident, and he had not contributed substantially to her support. Appellants contend that under California law damage for loss of future support is not measured by the support which it was decedent’s duty to furnish, but by the support which it was reasonable to expect the widow would in fact have received. Even if we assume appellants are correct as to the law, we are satisfied that there was evidence from which the district court could conclude as a matter of fact that decedent and ap-pellee had determined to re-establish a common home, and that at the time of her husband’s death there was a reasonable expectation that he would in the future furnish her the support appropriate to his income. We do not understand appellants to suggest that if this premise were accepted the amount awarded would nonetheless be excessive; and in any event we are satisfied that it would not.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 F.2d 453, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecil-riley-royal-stalco-inc-and-zero-refrigerated-lines-v-arline-v-ca9-1964.