The absence of a principled way to justify the limited remedies allowed by Kentucky wrongful death law was again illustrated recently by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the latest published decision in the tragic Trent DiGiurio story, Ragland v Estate of Trent DiGiuro, No 2009-CA-186 (October 22, 2010)
Trent DiGiurio was a University of Kentucky football player. On the evening of his 21st birthday in 1994, he was killed by a single shot to the head while on the porch of his residence on Woodland Avenue in Lexington. In 2000, Shane Ragland was charged with DiGiurio's murder, was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Subsequently, however, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed Ragland's decision and he later pleaded guilty to manslaughter, second-degree and received a sentence of eight years.
A wrongful death suit was prosecuted on behalf of Trent DiGiurio's estate. It was tried before a jury (neither Ragland nor his lawyer appeared at trial), which awarded $3,333,912 for destruction of Trent DiGiurio's power to work and earn money, $7796 in funeral expenses and $60 million in punitive damages. Fayette Circuit Judge Thomas E. Clark denial a post-trial motion to reduce the punitive damages assessed, observing that "to lie in wait, in the dark of night, and assassinate a person for purportedly being blackballed from a fraternity years earlier, the court can find no greater reprehensible conduct."
The Kentucky Court of Appeals (the panel comprising of Hon. Glenn E. Acree, Hon. Christopher Nickell and Senior Judge William Harris, who authored the Court' s opinion), however, agreed with Ragland and reduced the punitive damage award to $30 million. Toward justifying its decision the Court not only observed that Kentucky wrongful death law does not offer any remedy for the affliction done a family by a wrongful death but further ruled that these grievous injuries are irrelevant even to determining the constitutionality of a punitive damages award. This ruling is and direct and lamentable contrast with the approach taken in criminal wrongful death actions.
Victim impact evidence is a common component in the penalty phase of a death penalty prosecution. In Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), the Supreme Court explained that the materiality of such evidence was to allow full consideration of the harm caused by a defendant to honor the state's purpose of fixing an appropriate punishment. Kentucky Supreme Court has followed suit, holding repeatedly that presentation of victim impact evidence is appropriate so that the jury is fully informed of the harm including harm to the victim's family caused by the defendant. See Woodall v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2001); Epperson v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 46 (Ky. 2006).
While accepting these judicial explanations for the import of evidence regarding the harm caused a victim and his family by a death in the crimnal context, it must also be acknowledged that Kentucky public policy has no less an interest in assuring that a party responsible for causing the wrongful death of another is is held civilly liable and responsible for the harms their actions have inflicted. Paradoxically, in the same decision and in analyzing a statute of limitations issue, the court asserted that "the public policy of this Commonwealth is to provide victims' families with a remedy." Fair enough but true justice and sound public policy would provide for full recovery of the damages caused by a wrongful death including those for the afflictions caused the victim's family. Kentucky wrongful death law falls short of providing full and adequate remedies for families harmed by the wrongful death of a loved one.
