Miguel Undayag

PERRY v. MEDINA
Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, 1988
Facts:

The appellant, Catalina Perry, lost her son in a vehicular accident cause
by the negligent conduct of the defendant. The death of her son also
caused her to lose the financial support she enjoyed from her son. At
some point, while the decedent was in the process of divorce from the
mother of his minor daughter, the decedent lived the appellant for
three month which during the stay, he was giving her $100 for rent.
After he moved out from his mothers house, he was still giving $100
worth of groceries which they both ate. Also, aside from the groceries,
he was giving her additional $50 for surgery which the appellant spent
instead of saving. Facts also showed that her cost of living a month
was $400 minus the $200 rent. Furthermore, even though she was
living with her another child, Bill, he didnt pay rent and was seldom to
contribute in the expenses.

Procedure:

Catalina Perry, the appellant, filed a complaint against the defendant

for the wrongful death of her son on the grounds that she was
financially dependent to the decedent. In response to the complaint,
the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment against the
appellant on the grounds that she was insufficient to prove her
dependency to the decedent. The trial court, in favor of the defendant
granted the summary judgment since they found that the appellant
was not a dependent meaning based on Code of Civil Procedure 377.
The appellant from this judgment file an appeal.

Issue:

Does the appellants reliance on the decedent for monthly financial

support for her basic needs sufficient to take the cause of action for
wrongful death as a dependent parent?

Holding:

Yes. The court held that the loss of financial support given by the
decedent to the appellant was sufficient to establish her cause of
action for wrong death as a dependent parent.

Rule:

The parents who can take the cause of action for wrongful death of
their child, are those at the time of the death of the decedent are
dependent to the child for the necessaries of life such as shelter,
clothing, food and medical treatment.

Rationale:

The courts rationale for their reasoning was based upon the case of
Hazelwood v. Hazelwood in which the definition of dependency to some
extent was articulated. The court argued that a parent was dependent
to the child when at the time of the childs death; the parents are
dependent for the necessaries of life such as life, shelter, clothing, food
and medical treatment. Furthermore, although a parent may be
dependent to the child for love, affection, society and support, it
should be preceded and established first by financial dependency. This

was to limit the parents who may sue as dependents and to reason the
pecuniary loss they suffered. Consequently, the court decided on a
case by case basis since no prescription suggested by the legislative
when for wrongful death statute as long as the dependency for
necessaries of life was proven.
Disposition: The judgment of the court was reversed the summary judgment of the
trial court.