recognizing that judicial adoption of the doctrine ,of comparative negligence in Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037, 1042 (Alaska 1975), will require legislative amendment of Alaska’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that judicial adoption of the doctrine ,of comparative negligence in Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037, 1042 (Alaska 1975), will require legislative amendment of Alaska’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
- affirming trial court's exclusion of part of expert's proposed opinion testimony as "too speculative"
- striking trial testimony of representative party witness for failure to comply with discovery order
- 'The proper standard for review of the finding of proximate causation is ... the 'clearly erroneous' standard{.]"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ERWIN, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion in this case. However, I wish to note further that I believe that the passage of time has made apparent the need for certain adjustments in the rules announced in Beaulieu v. Elliott 1 for the' award of personal injury damages. In my view the failure to reduce a wrongful death award for impairment of earning capacity by an amount equal to the estimated taxes which would have been payable by the wage earner puts the family of the deceased in the anomalous position of receiving more mon *548 ey for the death of the wage earner than they would have received had he lived. 2
A similar problem is presented by the failure to realistically assess the personal consumption reduction for the particular deceased wage earner. However, since I view this as a matter of proof to be presented at trial, the trial judge in the case at bar was correct in computing the award based on a 16% personal consumption figure since that was the only evidence presented on the issue.
. Comment “Wrongful Death Damages,” 47 Mississippi Law Journal 178, 197-203 (1976). See also United States v. English, 521 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1975) ; Turcotte v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 173, 184-186 (1st Cir. 1974) ; Tenore v. Nu Gar Carriers, Inc., 67 N.J. 466 , 341 A.2d 613, 623-629 (1975) ; Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc., 144 Conn. 659 , 136 A.2d 918, 925-926 (1957) ; Dempsey v. Thompson, 363 Mo. 339 , 251 S.W.2d 42, 44-46 (1952).