# Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 22, 1980 · 491 Pa. 561

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746707

## Case

- **Full name:** Theodore KACZKOWSKI, Administrator of the Estate of Eric K. Kaczkowski, Deceased, on Behalf of the Estate of Eric K. Kaczkowski, Deceased, Appellant, v. John J. BOLUBASZ, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 22, 1980
- **Citations:** 491 Pa. 561; 421 A.2d 1027; 21 A.L.R. 4th 1; 1980 Pa. LEXIS 802
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
- **Cited by:** 152 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/9746707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “predicting lost future earnings entails some degree of speculation[; h]owever, that alone does not justify excluding reliable economic evidence since imprecision is inherent in any computation of lost future benefits”
- holding that courts shall consider the victim’s lost future productivity and that “future inflation shall be presumed equal to future interest rates with these factors offsetting.”
- holding that practice of discounting future lost earnings would be abandoned so as to offset effects of future inflation

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
While I fully concur in the view that- Havens v. Tonner, 243 Pa.Super. 371 , 365 A.2d 1271 (1976), should be unceremoniously eliminated from the law of this Commonwealth as unrealistic, I must dissent to the majority’s adoption of what it calls the “total offset method”, a “per se rule” of doubtful validity. True, such an approach is a simple one, but it does not achieve justice, and, has only been adopted in one jurisdiction, i.e., Alaska. We should simply permit expert testimony on the issues of inflation and productivity. Such testimony, on both sides of the issue, is, of course, subject to cross-examination and argument as to its validity and weight. Thus, the jury is free to weigh the evidence before it and render its verdict. This is also simple, and provides justice in accordance with our time honored principles.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746707. Public record. Not legal advice.