# Adams v. Deur > Supreme Court of Iowa · December 9, 1969 · 173 N.W.2d 100 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657915 ## Case - **Full name:** Norma E. ADAMS, Administrator of the Estate of Merrill R. Adams, Deceased, Appellee, v. Melvin DEUR and Jacob Vander Molen, D/B/A Peoria Stockyards, Roger Bandstra, and Clarence Richard De Boom, Appellants; Clarence Richard De BOOM, Cross-Petitioner, v. Melvin DEUR and Jacob Vander Molen, D/B/A Peoria Stockyards, and Roger Bandstra, Defendants to Cross-Petition - **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa - **Decided:** December 9, 1969 - **Citations:** 173 N.W.2d 100; 1969 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 943 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by LeGRAND - **Judges:** Rawlings, Legrand, Larson, Snell, Stuart, Rees - **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657915 ## Opinion text LeGRAND, Justice (dissenting). I dissent from Division VI of the majority opinion, which deals with the expert testimony of Dr. William F. Kenkel, a professor of family sociology at the University of Kentucky. The defendants do not question Dr. Ken-kel’s qualifications, nor do I. I believe, however, that some of the matters concerning which this expert testified are not the proper subjects for expert testimony at all. As pointed out in Grismore v. Consolidated Products Company, 232 Iowa 328 , 5 N.W.2d 646 , our landmark case on the subject, and as repeated as recently as Dougherty v. Boyken, Iowa, 155 N.W.2d 488, 490 , all expert testimony is admitted as a matter of necessity. It must first appear that a jury needs assistance on issues it is not able to intelligently and correctly determine alone. Thereafter a properly qualified expert may help the jury reach a proper determination. The matters to which I object are those dealing with the value of loss of services, now provable as an item of damages under section 613.15, Code of Iowa. Specifically I object to allowing an expert witness to put a dollar value on these services. I believe the amount to be recovered for this loss must rest in the sound discretion of the jury unaided by such testimony. After the usual questions concerning probable loss to the estate and loss of support, to which I raise no protest, the witness was interrogated in three areas dealing with his services to the family. The first is based on the following question: “Q. Now, Doctor, * * *, further assume that such a man as we are talking about completed ten years of school, and in the education and care and training of his children did the following with one or more of his children: That he taught them how to drive a car and instructed on how to operate a car safely and how to perform minor maintenance and repair on a car; that he participated in sports activities such as softball, hunting, fishing, rock hunting, playing cards and games, and taught them how to safely carry and use a gun and how to properly use fishing tackle and taught the rules of safe and legal hunting and proper fishing; and further assume that he taught them how to play games and to play cards, and that by example taught the value of a good sense of humor; further assume that he helped the children with their school work and with the chemistry set and with a star telescope, and if he found he did not understand the problem that the child had, that he would take it upon himself to first solve the problem or learn the subject before he would further attempt to help the child, and that he would consult with the children about their report cards and the grades they had obtained; assume that he attended church with his family and saw that they attended Sunday School, and that he instructed them in good moral conduct; assume that he helped with Cub Scout activities and instructed on Scout achievement tests; assume that he was able to prepare food for the family and that when necessary at home and on camping trips, he did so, and instructed the family on the proper and efficient camping techniques and methods; and assume that he was a safety conscious person and a good workman and that he imparted such a knowledge to other members of his family. *115 Doctor, do you have an opinion based on the reasonable sociological and economic certainty as to the value of this man’s services of education, care, and training of his children if his life had terminated on March 17, 1966?” Answering over objection the witness stated: “A. Yes, the lifetime value of these education and training services would be $13,120.40, and the commuted or discounted value of the services would be $11,414.42.” Then this question was posed to the witness : “Q. Doctor, * * * further assume that such a man was by experience qualified as a plumber, electrician, high line construction worker, welder, mechanic, and that such a man performed maintenance tasks around his home such as washing his car, changing the oil, making minor repairs to the family car, sanding floors, laying floor tile and linoleum, repairing appliances such as radios, washing machines, dryer, iron, stove, etc., repaired wiring in the house, installing new wiring and outlets throughout the entire house, repairing a roof, installing a new roof, puttying around the windows, adding a new room to the home, building kitchen cabinets, making needed repairs to the plumbing system including the installation of new faucets, painting the exterior of the house, painting the interior walls, hanging wallpaper in various rooms, and in doing all such tasks such a man was well qualified to perform them and was deliberate and exacting in his work. Doctor, do you have an opinion as to the reasonable value in this County of such services of maintenance tasks as performed by such a man?” Again after objection the answer came in as follows: “A. The lifetime value of these services would be $69,805.18 whereas the commuted or discounted value would be $35,981.34.” Then came this question: “Q. * * * Let’s further assume that such a man made or helped make decisions, choices, and selections that had an impact on and affected the welfare of the family and/or family members such as helping to select the family home, deciding when it would be best for the family and for them to move to a different community, determining when it was economically or otherwise desirable to trade the family car, formulating or helping to formulate plans for the family vacations, choosing the proper and necessary camping equipment, consulting with his wife about the future of their children including deciding to help as much as he could toward a higher education for the children, partaking in the discipline decisions in regard to the children, and in many cases making those decisions, helping to decide on the purchase of mutual funds such as a method for savings for the family, and being available to make any other decisions necessary for the well being of the family. Doctor, on these assumptions, do you have an opinion as to the reasonable value in this County of such services of making or helping to make decisions as performed by such a man?” The answer in this instance was: “A. The lifetime value of these services is $14,155.60, and the commuted or discounted value is $7,573.30.” The services covered by these three questions are those which every husband and father renders, in greater or lesser degree, to his family. I do not minimize the importance of these services, but I do contend that neither Dr. Kenkel, nor anyone else, can place a dollar value upon them. In the first place the jury needs no help with this kind of problem. Relying on its own good judgment and every-day experience in the same community in which decedent lived, the jury should be permitted to place its own value on such services and to allow recovery in the amount which they determine. Long ago in Bridenstine v. Iowa City Electric Railway Company, *116 181 Iowa 1124, 1134 , 165 N.W. 435 , 439, cited in the majority opinion, dealing with the value of services of a deceased mother, we said, “The services of a competent wife or mother cannot he weighed in the scales of the money changer. And indeed it would seem almost frivolous to call witnesses to estimate their monetary value.” (Emphasis added.) The majority would restrict the meaning of that language but I think it should be expanded to cover circumstances such as we face here. We used the language in Bridenstine in circumstances far less disturbing than those existing here. There at least the day-to-day duties of the housewife were more easily appraisable in dollar value. What witness (expert or lay) can put a money value on a parent’s services in teaching his son to shoot straight; or to play cards; or to drive safely; or to develop a sense of humor; or to teach them efficient camping techniques; or when to trade the family car; or when to move to a different community; or the advisability of making certain investments; or helping formulate plans for vacations? There are other items of the same character but these will suffice to illustrate my disagreement. In my opinion the placing of a monetary value on such services is not a proper field for expert testimony at all. To permit such testimony is not only “frivolous”, as we hinted in the Bridenstine case, but it actually approaches the absurd. Yet Dr. Kenkel was able to reduce the value of such services, not to an approximate figure, not to a dollar figure, but down to the last cent. I repeat that expert testimony should not be permitted to say what common sense and experience tells us is impossible simply because a witness claims he can do it. There is ample precedent for the rule I would adopt. The situations which come quickly to mind are those involving pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and exemplary damage. In each of these instances the jury is permitted to fix its own recovery under a proper instruction that the law has no fixed standard or guide by which to reach the amount a plaintiff is entitled to. That is the rule we should adopt here. LARSON, SNELL and STUART, JJ., join in this dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657915. Public record. Not legal advice.