The court nevertheless held that such damages were available under Delaware law. Id. at 312-13. In the court’s view, the only argument against awarding such damages along with other pecuniary losses is that the growth of the decedent’s estate and whether the plaintiff would naturally have survived the decedent are “matter[s] of speculation.” Id. at 312. The court discounted this argument by noting that, in general, damages in the wrongful death area are impossible to calculate exactly and that whether the plaintiff would naturally have survived the decedent may be answered by referring to longevity tables. See id. The court also found that legal commentators supported awarding such damages. See id; see also Esquilin v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 196 F.Supp. 600, 600-01 (D.P.R.1961) (<HOLDING>); cf. Moss v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 662
holding that severance payments are compensable as actual damages and not speculative in nature like damages for lost opportunities and profits holding that first amendment principles preclude recovery under state law for damages caused by speech or other protected conduct holding such damages available where local law silent on issue speculative nature of damages does not preclude recovery holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages