Honek

tern.—This appeal comes after a trial wherein the plaintiff was awarded $3,000 as damages for a minor son’s death. Appellant makes the point that the jury was without a necessary factor in assessing damages because, as he claims, the evidence was not sufficient for the approximation of the plaintiff’s life expectancy. Of course, the father’s life expectancy is an important element, as he was not only entitled to the son’s services and earnings during the nonage, but was entitled to such society, comfort and protection as under the circumstances obtaining could reasonably be expected from the son so long as they both should live. (Sneed v. Marysville Gas etc. Co., 149 Cal. 704 [ 87 Pac. 376 ].)

Respondent’s son was a normal, healthy boy of seventeen when the accident cost him his life. He was obedient, attended junior high school and helped his father in his work on Saturdays and at other times, but was paid nothing therefor. Respondent was a Japanese gardener, and had been caring for residential lawns for six or seven years, earning approximately $210 per month. He was injured in the accident that proved fatal to the son and was confined in a hospital for two months. He had…