October 21, 1999

After grief comes gimme

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

If James Parr, Jr. had owned a crystal ball, he never would have gone for a motorcycle ride to celebrate his 55th birthday.

For one thing, James had too many reasons to live: A wonderful marriage, a thriving jukebox restoration business, and loving parents, children and grandchildren,to name just a few.

But perhaps just as importantly, the Missouri man never would have let his life be cut short by a negligent motorist if he could have foreseen the divisive battle awaiting his family in a Jackson County courtroom.

On March 22, 1997, James experienced mechanical problems while riding his motorcycle on Interstate 70. He immediately pulled over and stopped on the shoulder of the road to inspect his two-wheeler. A good Samaritan then happened along in the form of another motorcyclist, who pulled over onto the shoulder to offer assistance.

But tragedy struck swiftly.

As the second motorcyclist slowed down in the right lane, all the drivers behind her followed suit.

All of the drivers, that is, except Ronald Blush, who was driving about 80 miles an hour in a loaded tractor trailer. Unable to decelerate as he approached the slower-moving traffic, Blush veered onto the shoulder -- striking and instantly killing James with his 40-ton rig.

The following month, James' wife, Carolyn Parr, filed a wrongful death suit in Jackson County Circuit Court against, among others, Blush and his employer.

In early 1998, Carolyn's attorneys negotiated a settlement with the defendants and their insurance companies. After deducting attorney fees and litigation expenses, the net recovery was approximately $647,000. This deal was subject to court review, however, including approval as to how the settlement proceeds should be apportioned between the respective family members.

In February 1998 Carolyn moved for an order approving the settlement. She proposed that her two adult children, Steven Parr and Shannon Chamberlain, get $20,000 each, that James' parents get $10,000 apiece, and that the balance of the proceeds (about $567,000) go to her.

But this didn't sit too well with James's mother. Given the good relationship she had had with her son, Mom argued in her response that she should get 17 percent to 20 percent of the proceeds, or between $100,000 and $117,500.

That same month, the court held a hearing where everyone got to speak.

Steven and Shannon sided with their mother. Although both children were close to their father, they said Carolyn deserved most, if not all, of the funds. At their mother's urging, however, they each requested $20,000 for a college fund for James's four grandchildren.

The next witness was Carolyn, who testified that she and James had been married almost 34 years at the time of his death. They shared a "wonderful marriage" and were "constant companions," she explained, especially the last 10 years when James operated his business out of the home.

Carolyn also said she had dated no one since James' death, that she was sleeping and eating poorly, and that her life without James was "very lonely."

The wife also submitted a report analyzing her financial losses attributable to James' death. According to the economist, the present value of the lost business income from James' jukebox restoration business, along with the present value of his lost household services, exceeded $1.1 million dollars.

Mom testified next.

The 76-year-old said that although she moved to Houston in 1985 to live with her youngest daughter, she maintained regular contact with her son. They spoke by phone at least once a month, including the day of the accident when she called her son to wish him a happy birthday. James frequently sent photographs, Mom said, as well as small amounts of money at Christmas.

The final witness was James's father, who was hospitalized at the time of the hearing and therefore had to submit a videotaped statement.

James Sr. described losing his son as the most devastating experience of his life. They had seen each other frequently, dad said, and shared a very loving father-son relationship, in part because they shared interests like riding motorcycles. For good measure, the elder Parr pointed out that James was the designated executor of his will.

Facing a no-win situation, the judge ruled that children and parents alike should get $10,000 each, while the balance -- about $587,000 -- should go to the wife. But that hardly ended the matter, as Mom and Dad promptly appealed. The $10,000 awards were "grossly inadequate," the parents claimed, while the award to their daughter-in-law was "grossly excessive."

To shorten this tale, a Missouri appeals court recently rejected the parents' plea.

What the court essentially said was that nobody wins in an apportionment proceeding -- not when the survivors must be compensated from a limited fund.

The justices emphasized that by awarding more than 90 percent of the proceeds to the wife, the trial judge meant to recognize the magnitude of Carolyn's losses, not diminish those suffered by James's parents.

Will the appeals court's conciliatory words reduce the aggrieved parents' grief? Your guess is as good as mine.

One thing is for sure, though. There likely won't be any family reunion at the Parr household for some time to come.

Previous columns:

• Cybercow meets digitruck, 10-01-1999
• Strange, blind justice, 09-23-1999
• Court case turns on a Barney doll, 09-02-1999
• Reasonable care for shorties, 08-05-1999
• Just say Boo to drugs, 07-22-1999
• Warning: The soup contains MSG, 07-09-1999
• Grave concerns for the dead, 06-17-1999
• Another roadside distraction, 06-04-1999