## Facts

- Ronald Paul Curtis, age 22, was killed instantly on July 19, 1973, when the car in which he was a passenger struck a guardrail after the driver, Robert A. Finneran, fell asleep at the wheel.
- Curtis left two minor sons as statutory beneficiaries for a wrongful death claim.
- The administrator ad prosequendum sued under the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act, seeking funeral expenses and damages measured by the children’s net pecuniary loss.
- At a non-jury trial, an economist testified to projected lost earnings to the children based on expected earnings, work-life, and deductions for personal consumption, yielding an estimate far higher than the eventual award.
- The trial judge rejected the expert’s projections as speculative and entered substantially lower damages for each child, without explaining the factual assumptions or calculations used.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial judge sitting without a jury must make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support a wrongful death damages award for net pecuniary loss.
2. Whether a damages judgment should be reversed and remanded when the trial court states award amounts but does not explain how it evaluated and departed from expert economic testimony.
3. Whether the appropriate remedy for inadequate findings is a new trial on damages rather than appellate modification of the award.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment upholding the damages award (while leaving in place the disallowance of counsel fees).
- The Court held that the bench-trial damages award was not supported by adequate findings of fact and stated reasons.
- The Court remanded for a new trial limited to damages, requiring proper findings and legal conclusions supporting any award.

## Legal Principles

- In non-jury cases, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and state conclusions of law sufficient to show the basis of the decision and to permit meaningful appellate review.
- Wrongful death damages under New Jersey law are limited to beneficiaries’ net pecuniary loss and commonly require projections of future earnings, personal maintenance, and duration of dependency.
- When a trial court discounts or rejects expert damages testimony, it must explain which assumptions or components it rejects and what evidentiary basis supports the alternative calculation.
- Appellate courts generally will not supply missing factfinding or reconstruct a damages methodology where the trial court did not articulate one; remand for a damages retrial is appropriate.

## Conclusion

Because the trial judge provided no factual findings or reasoning explaining how the net pecuniary loss figures were derived—especially in light of materially different expert testimony—the damages award could not be reviewed for legal or evidentiary support, requiring reversal and a new trial on damages.


Curtis v. Finneran, 417 A.2d 15 (N.J. 1980)