It may be a GQ, or it will probably turn into a GD so I will put it here.
I’ve been reading cases (most prominently the Fred Goldman/OJ civil case) where a young adult is killed by negligence (or intent) and the parents of that twenty-something adult get “compensated” by way of future earnings of the victim.
In other words, the victim was 22, could have worked until age 65, so take the expected salary X 43 years and pay the parents. I see several things wrong with that:
Parents don’t get their kids’ money anyways. The young adults spend it on regular living expenses and either save the rest to pass on to their kids or blow it on expensive boats and time shares. Either way, the parents will have normally kicked the bucket when their kids are in their 40s or 50s. Why do they get the whole life earnings?
What is to say that this young adult wouldn’t have become a drug addict, alcoholic, bad person, irresponsible, or died from cancer 4 years later? How can a court conclude that they would have made all of that money?
Maybe you could argue that IF the kids had extra money and IF the parents ran out of money that the kids could possibly pay for some old age care, IF they decided to out of the goodness of their hearts, but that is a lot of IFs.
So why do parents of young adults get the rest of their life earning potential when the parents will almost surely be dead for a large percentage of it?
My (probably flawed) understanding is that the parents aren’t suing as themselves, but as representatives of the deceased’s estate. Since the estate certainly would’ve benefited from future earnings of the person, the estate can sue to recover those earnings.
Of course, the effect is the same, since the parents are also the people who inherit the estate. But symantically, anyways, its a little different then the parents claiming they personally would’ve gotten the dead persons future earnings if they had lived.
I’m taking care of my parents. Not financially, they are fine that way. I’m just taking care of their house and property so they can live there as long as they want. I guess that would be something they would be lacking if I died.
As to why should they? Well, the idea that an estate can bring a lawsuit, conduct business, etc. is a standard principle of American law so you’d have a tough time getting rid of it.
That makes sense, but oughtn’t the calculation be the expected value of the estate at time of natural death, not the expected wages (but none of the expenses)?
I strongly suspect it is just lawyers way of getting money from those who seek revenge and cannot actually legally shoot the culprit. Elected persons got votes for passing such laws and now lawyers and angry (and greedy) parents benefit.
My mother was disabled the last year-plus of her life; I was her live in caretaker until her death. If I’d have died in my 20s she’d have been stuck in an institution of some kind I suppose.
I have a related question. What if I, a young and working and non-ill 26 year old, have a living will that states I don’t want either of my parents to benefit from my estate, ever, under any circumstances? And then, let’s say I wrongfully died tomorrow. Would that will prevent my parents from recovering in said tort? (I assume they could still attempt it)
What if I said I wanted all of my money to go to my sister, or to a local pet shelter? Would someone still be around to bring the tort against the company who contributed to my death? Would my sister have to do it? Would she have to prove my wishes to win the case?
There is the loss of a child, a potential grandchild and and inlaws . There are a lot of lifetime relationships aborted and a lot of pain and suffering absorbed.