(concurring in reversal). I agree with Justice Black that loss of companionship is not a “pecuniary injury” or “pecuniary loss”, and for that reason I concur in reversal for I perceive this to be the only issue necessary to decision in this case.
A fair reading of the rest of his opinion however leads to the conclusion that he would hold compensation for “pecuniary injuries” is recoverable only by dependents.
*280Nothing in the death act or the probate code (as it stands since amendment in 1965, MOLA § 702.115 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 27.3178[185]) persuades me that compensation for pecuniary injuries may not be recovered and distributed to dependent and non-dependent next of kin according to their proof of “pecuniary loss”.
Adams, J.(for affirmance).
I. The Facts
This appeal, by-passing the Court of Appeals, challenges the holding' of this Court since 1960 that loss of companionship is a pecuniary loss for which damages may be awarded under the provisions of Michigan’s wrongful death act.
Plaintiff, administrator of the estates of her deceased father and mother, brought this action against defendant Fuel Company and its truck driver for negligence in driving a truck that collided with decedents’ automobile. The mother died at the scene of the accident and the father 42 hours later.
Prior to trial, defendants admitted liability, leaving for jury determination only the issue of the amount of damages to be awarded. The father, at death, was 58; the mother, 55. Decedents were survived by two daughters: plaintiff, Judith Breckon, married and mother of two children, and Sally Walker, married and mother of two children. Prior to their death, decedents were residents of Kent County, as were Mr. and Mrs. Breckon. The Walkers lived in Lansing. Mrs. Breckon and decedents experienced a close family relationship, customarily seeing each other twice a week and usually for Sunday dinner. They went camping and canoeing together, played cards, and often spent holidays to*281gether. The Walkers visited decedents once or twice a month and on holidays.
More facts could he detailed. Suffice it to say that the family relationship was close with many inter-family activities. It was stipulated that expenses aggregating $1120 were incurred by the estate of the mother. Evidence before the jury showed expense by the estate of the father totalling $2550. The jury returned a verdict for $20,000 to the father’s estate and $15,000 to the mother’s.
II. The Law
(a) Wrongful Death — Whose Injury?
At the common law, there was no cause of action for wrongful death. Hyatt v. Adams (1867), 16 Mich 180.
Lord Campbell’s Act and its statutory counterpart in Michigan undertook to provide a remedy. The original Michigan act in 1848 did not treat the amount recovered as damages as an asset of the decedent’s estate. It said, “the amount recovered in every such action, shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person and shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin in the proportions provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property, left by persons dying intestate.” (Emphasis supplied.) PA 1848, No 38. In 1873, by Act No 94, the foregoing provision was amended to read, “the amount recovered in every such action, shall be distributed to the persons and in the proportions provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property, left by persons dying intestate.”
Recognizing that a change had been made by this amendment, in Findlay v. Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. (1895), 106 Mich 700, this Court held that the right of action given to an administrator by the *282death act constituted an asset of the estate of the deceased. Later it was suggested by some members of this Court that the administrator, in bringing a suit to recover damages, was suing in- a representative capacity, for injured claimants, and not solely to collect on an asset of the estate. In In re Oldman’s Estate (1933), 264 Mich 32, the issue was whether the administrator should lie permitted to file a cross-declaration against a claimant against decedent’s estate for wrongful death of decedent. This Court was equally divided. Justice Wiest wrote (p 37):
“If the administrator has recovery against claimant, such is not in behalf of the estate, but for distribution to persons suffering pecuniary injury resulting from such death.”
However, in In re Venneman’s Estate (1938), 286 Mich 368, the adult son by a former marriage who made no claim of pecuniary loss was held entitled to share in the amount received by way of settlement by the widow for the wrongful death of her husband. In effect, the Court determined that the damages recovered under the provisions of the death act as then in force were to be distributed among the beneficiaries not according to damage suffered by each of them but according to the proportions fixed by the statute of descent and distribution.
The decision in this case resulted in substantial changes in the death act in 1939.
(b) Recovery Under the Survival Act — An Estate Asset.
The rationale of the survival, act was that a right of action for.injuries had vested in the decedent, prior to death, as the normal consequence of the wrong inflicted and that the right subsequently came to the personal representative, by survival, when *283death ensued. Such an action, where begun by the representative, was for the recovery of damages measured by the injuries and disability suffered by the decedent while living. The amount recovered became an asset of the estate.
In Gates v. Beebe (1912), 170 Mich 107, this Court approved the following statement in the trial court’s charge (p 110):
“If the plaintiff is entitled to recover, she is entitled to recover such a sum as was spent in medical attendance upon the deceased, and, further, such a sum as you find deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life had he lived.”
The survival act did not touch nor was it concerned with the measure of damages but left the same for determination according to the rules of the common law. Norblad v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co. (1908), 156 Mich 697.
In Love v. Detroit, Jackson & Chicago R. Co. (1912), 170 Mich 1, it was recognized that a right or cause of action, as well as actions, survives, and upon subsequent death from injuries caused by negligent acts, the right of action becomes an asset of decedent’s estate “to be collected and distributed in accordance with the administration statutes.”
In Lincoln v. Detroit & Mackinac R. Co. (1914), 179 Mich 189, 196, the Court reiterated its position that the survival act created no new liability but prevented the lapsing by death of an old one.
(c) Survival Act — Death Act — Separate and Distinct Causes of Action.
Prior to 1939, the causes of action under the survival act and under the death act were treated as separate and distinct and not susceptible of com*284bination in one declaration. Hurst v. Detroit City Railway (1891), 84 Mich 539.
In Carbary v. Detroit United Railway (1909), 157 Mich 683, it was held that in an action for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate, a count under the survival act could be joined with a count under the death act; that the right of action under each act was an asset of the estate but there was not a double remedy, the joinder being permitted so as not to force the administrator to pursue one or the other at his peril; that since the administrator does not have a choice of remedies, he is not bound by an election; that he is limited to recovery on one count or the other; and that he cannot recover on both.
(d) The 1939 Amendments to the Death Act.
In 1939, without amending the survival act, the legislature made substantial changes in the death act by the enactment of PA 1939, No 297. There were four major changes:
1. Section 1 of the death act was expanded to include not only death of a person (as formerly) but also “injuries resulting in death.” This did away with the old requirement of instantaneous death for maintaining a death-act action.
2. The following new sentence was added to § 1: “All actions for such death, or injuries resulting in death, shall hereafter be brought only under this act.” This had the effect of eliminating common-law remedies, if there were any. It also combined into one action the two remedies which previously had been considered to be separate and distinct.
3. Section 2 was rewritten to add new provisions regarding specific items for which recovery could now be had in a death action, such as medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses for which the estate of decedent was liable, and “reasonable compensation” for pain and suffering. Obviously, re*285covery of any such, sums relate to decedent and not to the surviving spouse and next of kin.
A further change made in § 2 by the 1939 amendment transformed the character of the “personal representative,” who alone can bring the action, to that of a trustee or fiduciary acting on behalf of individual claimants suffering pecuniary injury. Under old § 2, whatever amount was recovered was distributed in the proportions provided by law for the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate. This had the effect of treating the sum recovered as damages as though it was an asset of the estate and distribution was made in complete disregard of the “pecuniary injury” suffered separately by the surviving spouse and next of kin as shown by the proofs.
Under new § 2, the individual claims are recognized. The trial court is required to advise the probate court by written opinion as to the amount of the recovery “representing the total pecuniary loss suffered by the surviving spouse and all of the next of kin, and the proportion of such total pecuniary loss suffered by the surviving spouse and each of the next of kin of such deceased person, as shown by the evidence introduced upon the trial of such case.”
The individual proportions of the total recovery going to the surviving spouse and next of kin as a class were to be determined on the basis of the evidence at the trial but the personal representative alone could bring the action, acting in the capacity of a statutory trustee. He was in no position to represent the various claimants except to lend his name in his official capacity so as to bring together in one action multiple claims. Under old § 2, the amount recovered was distributed by operation of law, not on the basis of individual proofs, and the *286“personal representative” as plaintiff was the real party in interest.
4. A new § 3 was added which had the effect of repealing the survival act to the extent that its provisions were inconsistent with the provisions of the death act as amended in 1939.
As previously indicated, this Court prior to 1939 would not permit recovery under the survival act and also recovery under the death act by the personal representative. To approve of such action would have been to recognize a double recovery for a single wrong. With the adoption of the 1939 act, the concept became one of a single recovery to compensate for a double wrong.
In the case of In re Olney’s Estate (1944), 309 Mich 65, a majority of the Court concluded that the statutory provisions for survival of actions still remained in force after 1939 and there is survival regardless of whether the death is that of the injured party or that of the tortfeasor. North, C. J., writing for the majority, expressed the view (p 82):
“the obvious purpose of the 1939 act was to enable a person to bring his action under this statute regardless of whether there was instantaneous death or survival of the injured person, and to provide to what person or persons the damages recovered should be ‘distributed’.”
The above interpretation of the 1939 amendment was reaffirmed by a divided Court in Grimes v. King (1945), 311 Mich 399, 414. In that case it was argued that damages for loss of earnings could not be awarded where there was no evidence that anyone entitled to bring the action suffered a pecuniary loss. Bushnell, J., writing for the majority, disposed of the issue in this way (p 415):
*287“The administrator’s right to recover is not limited to the pecuniary loss suffered by the husband for the value of his wife’s services. The deceased had an established earning capacity as a music teacher and had she lived throughout her expectancy could have added to the worth of her estate in which her heirs at law would participate. Under the statutory provisions, supra, they would also participate in the distribution of the damages assessed and collected.”
In the subsequent case of Baker v. Slack (1948), 319 Mich 703, this Court repudiated the rule announced in Grimes and, as a consequence of its decision, recovery in the Baker case was limited to funeral and burial expense in the amount of $190.
From this review of Michigan cases, it can be seen that this Court repeatedly grappled with the problem of recovery under the survival act and the death act. Once the two actions were merged in 1939, the problem of an adequate recovery in the case of a wage earner prematurely killed by a wrongful act was largely met by the holding in Grimes only to be stripped away by the holding in Baker. And what of the non-wage earner — a child, a wife or a parent — whose instantaneous wrongful death might inflict severe injury upon those members of the family left behind? How could that injury be compensated for if a strict earnings or loss-of-money-benefit test was all that was to be applied? This is the problem this Court struggled with in the 1950’s and finally came to grips with in 1960.
- 1960
In Wycko v. Gnodtke, 361 Mich 331, decided September 16, 1960, damages were claimed by the parents of a 14-year-old boy who was killed by the negligent operation of defendant’s automobile. The jury brought in an award of $14,000, plus funeral *288and burial expenses. The trial judge reduced the jury verdict by almost 50% because, as he said, he could not “bring himself to believe that any boy of the age of decedent * * * could have had the earning capacity indicated by this verdict, even under modern conditions.” 361 Mich at p 354. On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment upon the verdict of the jury. Justice Talbot Smith, writing for himself and Justices Black, Edwards, Kavanagh and Souris, rejected the concept under the early English decisions that pecuniary loss meant only a money loss and the money loss from the death of a child meant only lost wages. Justice Smith wrote (pp 338-340):
“[W] enow reject * * * the child-labor measure of the pecuniary loss suffered through the death of a minor child, namely, his probable wages less the cost of his keep. * * * [S]o an individual member of a family has a value to others as part of a functioning social and economic unit. This value is the value of mutual society and protection, in a word, companionship. The human companionship thus afforded has a definite, substantial, and ascertainable pecuniary value and its loss forms a part of the ‘value’ of the life we seek to ascertain. We are, it will be noted, restricting the losses to pecuniary losses, the actual money value of the life of the child, not the sorrow and anguish caused by its death. This is not because these are not suffered and not because they are unreal. The genius of the common law is capable, were it left alone, of ascertaining such damages, but the legislative act creating the remedy forbids. Food, shelter, clothing, and companionship, however, obtainable on the open market, have an ascertainable money value.” (Emphasis added.)
*289 1962
In Burns v. Van Laan (1962), 367 Mich 485, the members of this Court unanimously agreed to a judgment of dismissal of a widow’s action, brought in her individual capacity, to recover damages for loss of her husband’s consortium caused by wrongful death. Judgment under the death act had previously been obtained against the same defendants in a suit by decedent’s personal representative and this Court, for divergent reasons, held that such an action was the exclusive remedy. Thus, in the case of death rather than injury, the wrongful death act was held to encompass the damages a wife might recover. She does not have a separate cause of action against a tortfeasor who kills her husband as she does against the one who injured him. See Montgomery v. Stephan (1960), 359 Mich 33.
1965
In Currie v. Fiting (1965), 375 Mich 440, a majority of this Court upheld a determination by the trial judge allowing recovery and awarding damages in excess of funeral expenses to the administrator of decedent’s estate in an action under the death act for the negligent killing of an unmarried woman, age 21 years and 11 months. Becovery was allowed for the loss of society and companionship by the surviving parents as sole heirs. There was no proof of financial dependency on decedent but there was a clear and compelling showing of dependency by the parents upon their daughter for companionship.
Heider v. Michigan Sugar Company (1965), 375 Mich 490, was an action by the administrator of the estates of two half-brothers, ages 12-1/2 and 8 years, who died by drowning in defendant’s pond. My dissenting opinion discussed the measure of recovery *290for pecuniary injury and the persons entitled thereto. The case was decided for defendant on the basis of no liability.
Reisig v. Klusendorf (1965), 375 Mich 519, was an action for damages by the administrator of the estate of an unmarried, 23-year-old man. At the time of his death in an automobile collision, he resided with his parents. Damages were sought for medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses and for pecuniary injury consisting of loss of companionship. No claim was made for loss of services or support contributions. Justice Kelly, for himself and Justice Dethmebs, wrote (p 524):
“Judicial experience since Wycko strengthens my belief that the ‘old rule’ is preferable to the rule we adopted in Wycko”
I stated (p 525):
“No ‘judicial experience’ since then has demonstrated that this Court should not continue to permit adequate compensation for the wrong done nor has Justice Kelly set forth any in his opinion.”
A majority of the Court applied the reasoning which controlled the decision in Currie v. Fiting, supra, in affirming a jury verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.
Wilson v. Modern Mobile Homes, Inc. (1965), 376 Mich 342, was a suit by the administrator for damages for the death of a ten-year-old child by electrocution caused by defective wiring óf a house trailer. Appellant complained of the refusal of the trial judge to give a requested instruction that from any award for loss of companionship there must be deducted the cost for expenses of birth, clothing, food, et cetera, during the period that deceased lived, and there must also be deducted the pecuniary value of the companionship received during the same period, *291the money value of the companionship to be based upon something obtainable in the open market. Chief Justice T. M. Kavanagh, writing for four members of the Court, said (p 351):
“Defendant enumerates several reasons why this Court should not follow the holding of Wycko, supra, and should require deduction of the companionship, society and comfort received during the lifetime of the decedent, as well as the cost of procuring the companionship.
“We again reaffirm today the holding of Wycko that a parent may properly recover the cost of the acquisition of such society and comfort, and that a jury is capable of ascertaining such damages, fairly and equitably to all parties.
“A jury in a death case, as stated in Wycko, supra, is required to compute the pecuniary loss suffered because of the taking of the life. The pecuniary value of the life is composed of ‘a compound of many elements.’ No instruction to subtract, add, or multiply is necessary. Juries are to arrive at a determination as to the money value of a life, taking into consideration expenses and companionship as well as other relevant considerations introduced as evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
Justice O’Hara concurred separately. Justices Black, Dethmers, and Kelly dissented.2III. Legislative Action and Inaction
1960
This review of the cases makes clear that it was impossible for them to go unnoticed by the legisla*292ture. Prior to 1960, the Michigan death act, as it had been amended from time to time since its original passage in 1848, was found in the Compiled Laws of 1948 at §§ 691.581 and 691.582, contained in a chapter along with numerous other sections as a supplement to the Judicature Act of 1915. In 1960, the same year in which Wycko was decided, the Michigan legislature had pending for consideration and passage House Bill No 1, Regular Session of 1960. This was a bill to enact a revised judicature act. Its proposed § 22.22 read in its entirety as follows:
“Sec. 22.22. (1) Whenever the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, which, if death had not ensued, would have entitled the injured party to maintain an action and recover damage in respect thereof, then in every case the person who, or corporation, or other entity, which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to the personal representative of the deceased person in an action for damages
“(a) for the wrongful death;
“(b) for the injuries suffered by the deceased person prior to death, including pain and suffering; and “(c) for the reasonable value of the medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses incurred.
“(2) The damages recovered under (l)(a) above shall be the pecuniary injuries suffered as a result of the injury and death by the surviving spouse and next of kin who are of the class, who by law would be entitled to inherit the personal property of the deceased had he died intestate, and they shall be distributed to these persons in proportion to their pecuniary loss.
“(3) The damages recovered under (l)(b) above shall be distributed to those who by law would be *293entitled to inherit the personal property of the deceased had he died intestate.
“(4) The damages recovered under (l)(c) above shall be distributed to those proving claims therefor.
“(5) Within 30 days after the entry of judgment in a wrongful death action, the judge shall certify to the probate court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased person the amount of the judgment and the date of its entry and in writing shall advise the probate court of
“(a) the total amount awarded for pecuniary injury suffered by those qualified for distribution and the proportion suffered by each as shown by the evidence in the case;
“(b) the total amount awarded for injuries suffered by the deceased prior to death; and
“(c) the amount awarded for the reasonable value of the medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses.”3
1961
House Bill No 1 was not passed by the 1960 legislature. A new bill to revise the Judicature Act was introduced in the 1961 Regular Session as House Bill No 3. The language that had appeared in the 1960 session as § 22.22 of House Bill No 1 was completely re-drafted in House Bill No 3 and appeared as § 2922. As so re-drafted, it contained the identical language which had appeared in §§ 691.581 and 691.582, except for insignificant editorial changes. *294With the passage of House Bill No 3 of the Regular Session of 1961, § 2922 thereof became § 2922 of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, being PA 1961, No 236 (CLS 1961, § 600.2922; Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2922).
The Revised Judicature Act of 1961 (PA 1961, No 236) was approved by the Governor on June 9,1961. Its provisions took effect on January 1, 1963.
1965
In 1965, the legislature amended § 2922 of RJA by the passage of PA 1965, No 146. (The amendatory change is set forth in Justice Black’s opinion.) The 1965 amendment to the wrongful death section of the act (§ 2922) took effect July 12, 1965, by an immediate effect provision. PA 1965, No 146. Currie v. Fiting, supra, was decided May 10, 1965. The cases of Heider v. Michigan Sugar Company, supra, and Reisig v. Klusendorf, supra, were decided the same day.
The foregoing legislative history of the wrongful death act shows clearly that its provisions had come to the attention of the legislature for both revision and amendment at the time of and subsequent to this Court’s decision in Wycho. If legislative change was desired, certainly opportunity was present.
It will be recalled that after this Court’s decision on November 10, 1938 in In re Venneman’s Estate, supra, the legislature enacted the 1939 amendments to the death act on June 20, 1939. In that situation the legislature acted in a little less than eight months from date of the Court’s opinion to passage of legislation. In this present situation the legislature, charged with responsibility for enacting or amending laws in the determination and furtherance of the public policy of the state, has made no significant change in any of the provisions of the death act as *295they appeared in the Compiled Laws of 1948 for over ten years since Wycko.
It has long been recognized that where this Court has given an interpretation to a statute with no reaction from the legislature in the form of statutory revision, it may be assumed there is legislative acquiescence in the statute’s meaning. Even more persuasive is the rule that where the basic provisions of a statute have been construed by the courts and these provisions are subsequently re-enacted by the legislature, it may be assumed that the legislature acted with knowledge of the Court’s decisions and that the legislature intended the re-enacted statute to carry the Court’s interpretation with it. See: Mc-Evoy v. City of Sault Ste. Marie (1904), 136 Mich 172; Gwitt v. Foss (1925), 230 Mich 8, 12; In re Clayton Estate (1955), 343 Mich 101, 106, 107; Jeruzal v. Wayne County Drain Commissioner (1957), 350 Mich 527, 534.
IV. Dependency
In Currie, this Court declined to pass upon the provision of the Probate Code, PA 1939, No 288, chapter 2, § 115 (CL 1948, § 702.115 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3178 (185)]). A majority of the Court held that any question of distribution under the code and construction of “dependency” was not before it. The same situation exists in this case. Ordinarily, it is time enough to construe and decide the meaning of a statute when the question before the Court requires such action.
Granted that the wrongful death and probate code provisions are unitary legislation, it does not follow that the decisions of this Court in Wycko, Currie, etc., are in conflict with the code.
In 1957, in a concurring opinion in MacDonald v. Quimby, 350 Mich 21, Justice Black gave his inter*296pretation of an eligible beneficiary of the cause of action brought by an administrator under the death act, in these words (p 34):
“Any ‘next of kin,’ i.e., blood relative, is a rightful beneficiary in such case provided he or she is shown to have been dependent in fact or law on the decedent when death occurred and is a member of the statutory ‘class’ from which, in the variant circumstances of succession, the inheritor or inheritors of the personal estate of one dying intestate are selected.” (Emphasis added.)
He arrived at the conclusion by relying on the provisions of §§ 114 and 115 of chapter 2 of the Probate Code which he construed together with §§ 1 and 2 of the death act as the unitary statutes of 1939. It will be recalled that in 1960 in Wycko Justice Black signed the opinion of Justice Talbot Smith in which dependency was analyzed in these terms (p 339):
“Moreover, just as an item of machinery forming part of a functioning industrial plant has a value over and above that of a similar item in a showroom, awaiting purchase, so an individual member of a family has a value to others as part of a functioning social and economic unit.”
In Currie v. Fiting (1965), 375 Mich 440, Justice Black, after quoting § 115(4) of the Probate Code, said (p 471):
“The legislature wanted to make sure that only those persons who were legally or factually dependent upon the decedent for prospective services, prospective support, or continuity of contributions toward support should receive damages for ‘pecuniary injury.’ ”
While I agree with what Justice Black wrote in MacDonald and with what he signed in Wycko, I *297disagree with what he wrote in Currie and with what he writes today. The concept of “pecuniary loss” was enlarged in Wycko. Reference should he made to Justice Smith’s full elucidation of that concept in his opinions in Wycko and Courtney v. Apple (1956), 345 Mich 223. In sum, this Court found that just as damages can be allowed for pain and suffering to a living person injured by a tortfeasor, so also can damages be allowed when death results to that class of persons who are most injured by the death — the next of kin — since in such instance it may be they who have suffered a loss, i.e., loss of companionship.
I see no difficulty in correlating dependency with the concept of “pecuniary loss” as now held by our cases. Justice Black foresaw the need for a “new and flexible interpretation” in 1957 when, writing in MacDonald, supra, and discussing the need to construe the death act and the Probate Code provisions together, he said (p 35):
“It must be faced and then confessed that the mentioned enactments, if separately viewed, are fraught with patent as well as latent ambiguities. For instance, and in the case of probate-approved adjustment of a cause for wrongful death of an infant survived by parents, or of a wife survived solely by spouse, how can the probate court distribute proceeds under said section 115, subd 4, to ‘dependents of the decedent’ absent new and flexible interpretation — assisted by said section 2 — of the word “dependents” f ”
Dependency upon another person arising out of companionship is quite as ascertainable as pain and suffering, perhaps even more so. Such dependency was clearly evident in Currie as it is in the present case. It is a factual determination and does not necessarily exist between next of kin. See Heider v. *298Michigan Sugar Company (1965), 375 Mich 490. The problem is analyzed in appellee’s brief as follows :
“Appellants also argue that it is easier to defend against excessive claims on account of pain and suffering than on account of loss of companionship. To the contrary, pain and suffering is largely an individual experience of short duration described in subjective terms. The extent and depth of society and companionship within a family group, on the other hand, involves several individuals in most cases and is observable by others over long periods of time. Thus, it would seem easier to protect against excessive claims by ferreting out evidence of disharmony and lack of companionship than it would be to minimize the subjective descriptions of a person who suffers a broken back or a broken leg. Certainly, it would be no more difficult, and even if more difficult, should not become a shield for a culpable wrongdoer.” (Emphasis added.)
The legislature was familiar with the opinions of this Court dealing with the recovery of damages in cases of wrongful death and the manner of distribution to surviving spouse and next of kin when it had under consideration in 1960 a bill calling for a revised judicature act. The fact that a substitute provision was rejected and the existing provisions retained in the wrongful death section as enacted in the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 with subsequent amendment in 1965 shows more than passive acquiescence in the Court’s interpretations of the statutes. It shows actual rerenactment of the statutes after this Court’s interpretive opinions had been published for a sufficient time to permit their consideration by the members of the legislature, as well as by the bench and bar. I can see no reason now to abandon those holdings. To do so is to reject the affirmation of Justice Talbot Smith and a major*299ity of this Court in Wycho that life has value not only to the person who has been deprived of its enjoyment by a wrongful death but to the spouse and next of kin who have lost those benefits of association we summarize in the word “companionship.”
But to return to the cases presently before us, it will be recalled that there was no dispute as to the wrongfulness of the deaths. The defendant admitted liability. The sole issue before the jury was damages. A verdict of $15,000 was returned to the mother’s estate and $20,000 to the father’s estate. If the measure of damages is to be that contended for by Justice Black, what amounts may be recovered upon remand and a new trial? The stipulated expenses of the mother’s estate are $1120. The extent of her recovery is $1120. Consequently, there is no reason to remand in this case as there is no question for a jury. The expenses in the father’s estate were shown to be $2550, to which amount a jury could assess damages for pain and suffering limited to the 42 hours which he survived. This would be the extent of the recovery by the father’s estate. Nothing could be allowed to the two daughters for their loss of companionship of their father and mother whose lives were prematurely terminated by wrongful death.
I vote to affirm.
T. M. Kavanagh, J., concurred with Adams, J.The same language with the addition of the words, “The probate court shall order the distribution of the proceeds awarded in this action as hereinbefore set out,” had been published by the State Bar of Michigan under date of November 15, 1959, as a part of the printed Final Report of the Joint Committee of Michigan Procedural Revision, Part II, Proposed Statutes and Comments, pp 185, 186. The Preface on page iii of the Report contains the statement:
“We express our appreciation to Callaghan & Company for printing, without cost to the committee, the report in three parts, and for making available, a limited number of copies for distribution to the members of the legislature, the judges, and other persons who have helped the committee in its deliberations.”