Bridgette A. Anderson and Candy S‪.‬

As argued, the controlling errors assigned by the department may be summarized as claiming that the district court wrongly
(1) found the department liable, as its conduct neither violated a duty it owed the girls nor proximately caused their injuries;
(2) awarded hedonic damages as a separate and distinct category of damages; and (3) received and considered evidence concerning
the computation of damages. The mother cross-appealed on behalf of the girls, assigning as error, in essence, the claimed
inadequacy of the damages awarded.