
    James C. POLK and Betty C. Polk, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gus O. WILEY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 5247.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Dec. 24, 1975.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1976.
    
      Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by Leo Gold, Stafford, Pitts & Stafford by John L. Pitts, Lewis O. Lauve, Gist, Methvin & Trimble by James T. Trimble, Jr., Alexandria, Sam J. Friedman, Natchitoches, for defendants-appellants.
    Gravel, Roy & Burnes by Chris J. Roy, Alexandria, Roy Maughan and Dorsey Martin III, Baton Rouge, Alfred Mansour and Edward A. Kaplan, Pharis & Pharis by F. Jean Pharis, Alexandria, Watson, Murchison, Crews & Arthur by William P. Crews, Jr., Natchitoches, for plaintiffs-ap-pellees.
    Before MILLER, WATSON and CU-TRER, JJ.
   MILLER, Judge.

Defendants appeal a judgment awarding general damages of $80,000 to plaintiffs James C. and Betty C. Polk for the wrongful death of their son James C. Polk, Jr. He was a guest passenger in a pickup truck. We affirm.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with Ogaard v. Wiley, 325 So.2d 642 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1975), handed down this date. Defendants are named in that opinion. For reasons there assigned the trial court judgment is affirmed as to liability of the several defendants.

Defendants contend a lesser award would produce substantial investment income. We find that to be irrelevant.

Evidence shows a close family relationship. James Junior was involved in scouting and his father participated in leadership to be with and assist his,son. Junior was the only child still living at home at the time of his death. He was their only son. Because of their age, plaintiffs had no prospect of having more children. Because of the constant reminders and to avoid aggravating their grief, the Polks sold their home and moved away.

On these facts we are unable to hold defendants established manifest error in the trial court’s exercise of its much discretion.

The award of $40,000 in general damages to each parent for the loss of their son is affirmed at appellants’ costs.

Affirmed.

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

For reasons assigned on rehearing in Ogaard v. Wiley, 325 So.2d 642 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1975), we amend the trial court’s and our former decree to assess all legal interest which accrues on the judgment from June 6, 1975 to defendants Hartford and Travelers. Should Hartford and Travelers satisfy their liability on the judgments, Mission would then be liable for interest accruing thereafter.

With this amendment, all applications for rehearing are denied. All parties are hereby granted leave to file additional applications for rehearing relating to this amended decree.

Amended and affirmed.  