In any event, that defence argument assumes that the deceased was a young child without any present source of earnings, and with no immediate prospect of them. We do not know whether that is so or not. That is a matter of evidence. For reasons given above, the relevant question is different. Suppose that we accept the dictum in James v. Rentz, supra. Can one call "possible" or "speculative" or "contingent" all claims by all manner of persons in all circumstances for loss of future earnings, or earning capacity? Plainly one cannot. It is easy to imagine a fatal accident victim who had no dependents, but had completely secure salary and employment or office at the time of his injury or death. For example, the victim might be a tenured university professor.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.