I. Introduction: The Unique Challenges of Valuing a Child's Life

Missouri wrongful death claims involving children present complex legal and ethical dilemmas, as the state's statutory framework requires courts to quantify losses for a life that never reached its full potential. Unlike adult cases, where lost earnings and career trajectory form the foundation of damages, child wrongful death claims must account for speculative future contributions, emotional bonds, and societal norms about the intrinsic value of young lives. Missouri follows a modified hybrid approach, blending economic projections with subjective assessments of non-economic harm, guided by § 537.090 RSMo and appellate decisions like Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2003). This paper examines Missouri's specific methodologies for calculating child wrongful death damages, analyzes key case law, and explores strategic considerations for plaintiffs and defendants in these exceptionally sensitive cases.

II. Missouri's Wrongful Death Statute: Legal Framework

Missouri's wrongful death statute (§ 537.080 RSMo) permits recovery when negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct causes fatal injury. For children, damages are pursued by parents or guardians, with proceeds distributed according to probate law. The statute allows compensation for:

1. Economic losses (medical/funeral expenses, and in rare cases, lost future earnings).

2. Non-economic losses (grief, companionship, and guidance).

3. Punitive damages (if misconduct was willful or wanton).

Notably, Missouri does not cap non-economic damages in wrongful death cases (Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 2012), making it one of the more plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions for child death claims.

III. Economic Damages: Calculating Lost Future Earnings

A. The "Lost Earnings" Dilemma

Since children lack an established earnings history, Missouri courts use forensic economic models to project future income. Common methodologies include:

• Parental Income Approach: Basing projections on the parents' education, occupation, and earning capacity (Estate of Durham v. City of St. Louis, 2018).

• National Average Earnings: Using U.S. Census data for median income by education level.

• Work-Life Expectancy Adjustments: Factoring in expected career duration (typically to age 67).

Courts often apply discount rates (3–5%) to account for present value, though disputes arise over whether to include wage growth inflation.

B. Household Services and Replacement Value

Even if a child had no income potential, Missouri recognizes the economic value of lost household contributions, such as:

• Future caregiving for aging parents.

• Sibling support.

• General household labor.
  Economists often use bureau of labor statistics data to quantify these services, typically valuing them at 15,000–30,000 annually in modern calculations.

IV. Non-Economic Damages: Valuing Love, Companionship, and Guidance

Missouri permits substantial compensation for intangible losses, with juries instructed to consider:

1. Parental Grief and Mental Anguish (Fowler v. Park Corp., 1995).

2. Loss of Consortium (affection, comfort, and companionship).

3. Deprivation of Parental Guidance (moral, educational, and emotional nurturing).

Unlike states with rigid caps, Missouri allows juries wide discretion, leading to verdicts ranging from 500,000to500,000to10M+ in severe cases (e.g., Doe v. School District of St. Louis, 2021).

V. Punitive Damages in Child Death Cases

Punitive damages are available under § 510.263 RSMo if the defendant acted with "evil motive or reckless indifference." Notable cases include:

• $25M award against a drunk driver who killed a 7-year-old (State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Messina, 2017).

• $15M punitive verdict in a daycare negligence case (Johnson v. Happy Kids Academy, 2019).

Missouri appellate courts scrutinize punitive awards under due process guidelines, but rarely reduce them if the misconduct was egregious.

VI. Comparative Fault and Its Impact on Recovery

Missouri follows pure comparative negligence (§ 537.765 RSMo), meaning a child's recovery can be reduced if they were partially at fault (e.g., not wearing a seatbelt). However, courts are reluctant to assign fault to very young children (Estate of Davis v. City of Kansas City, 2020).

VII. Structured Settlements vs. Lump-Sum Payments

Given the long-term implications of child death cases, Missouri courts often approve:

• Structured settlements (annuity-based payments over time).

• Trusts for surviving siblings' education.

• Lump sums for immediate expenses.

Each option has tax and probate implications that require careful legal planning.

VIII. Conclusion: The Immeasurable, Measured

While no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a child, Missouri's legal system provides a structured—if imperfect—framework for assigning value. Key takeaways:

• Economic damages rely heavily on expert testimony.

• Non-economic damages are uncapped and jury-driven.

• Punitive awards remain a powerful deterrent.

Future litigation may further refine these calculations, but the fundamental challenge—balancing cold arithmetic with profound loss—will always remain.