Stringham v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
181 Ill. App. 3d 312, 130 Ill. Dec. 81, 536 N.E.2d 1292 (1989)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
David Stringham was killed in an automobile accident with United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) (defendant). Stringham’s estate (the estate) (plaintiff) brought a wrongful-death action against UPS. At trial, the estate’s economic expert, Jack Skeels, testified to the value of Stringham’s projected future earnings. Based on actuarial data, Skeels predicted that Stringham would have continued working a certain number of years if he had lived. Skeels created an age profile of Stringham showing Stringham earning greater wages as he gained years of experience. The wage levels used by Skeels did not account for inflation. Instead, the wage levels were based on a comparison of income levels of workers of different ages at the same point in time. Next, Skeels discounted Stringham’s future earnings using a market interest rate of 7.3 percent minus a rate of 6 percent representing “growth of earnings,” which was essentially the rate of inflation. Skeels thus used a 1.3 percent net discount rate to calculate the present value of Stringham’s future earnings. Based on Skeels’s testimony, the jury awarded the estate $252,631.08. The trial court entered judgment accordingly. UPS appealed, arguing that Skeels’s accounting for inflation during his present-value calculation was improper.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.