Har-Pen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Mills
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
378 F.2d 705 (1967)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Allen and Patricia Mills were killed driving on a road in Georgia when a load of pipe from a truck owned by Har-Pen Truck Lines (plaintiff) fell on their car and crushed Allen and Patricia. Wrongful-death claims were filed on behalf of Allen and Patricia by their three sons (defendants), and at trial, a jury awarded $100,000 for each parent. Har-Pen appealed the ruling on the grounds of miscalculations of the wrongful-death awards. Evidence regarding Allen established that he was a salesman with a variable income at the time of his death. In the last six weeks before Allen’s death, he earned about $616 monthly. In the last full quarter before Allen’s death, he earned about $754 per month. A coworker of Allen testified at trial that Allen could earn $15,000 a year as a salesman and had the potential to advance to greater compensation as an executive or manager. A mortality table indicated a life expectancy of 22.5 years for Allen, and the annuity table introduced by Mills provided a 7 percent discount rate. If the $616 figure was used, that would produce a value of $74,385. If the $754 figure was used, that would produce a value of $90,997. Undoubtedly, the $15,000 per-year figure would produce a value much higher ($150,780), with even higher figures noted for a possible manager or executive compensation. For Patricia Mills, Professor Pyun testified and valued her contribution as a homemaker until the youngest child completed college and then with nine years of outside work until Patricia reached retirement age. Professor Pyun valued Patricia’s services as a homemaker by positing that replacing her would cost more than Patricia would have earned as an outside worker. Pyun then valued Patricia’s household services for 11 years at $69,852 and her 9 years of outside work at $31,948 for a total of $101,800, with all figures reduced by a 7 percent discount rate. Har-Pen opposed the figures as too speculative and, in the case of Patricia Mills, invading the jury’s province to value the services of a homemaker.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

