LOTH V. TRUCK-A-WAY CORP.
60 Cal.App.4th 757 (1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Truck-A-Way Corp. (D), the owner of a truck and its employee driver,
challenged a judgment, which incorporated a jury's general verdict awarding Loth (P),
motorist, $890,000 for injuries sustained in car accident with D after the jury had heard
expert evidence, and was instructed, on 'hedonic' damages.
FACTS: P was on a business trip driving north on Interstate 5. P's small car was struck
by a 24-wheel tractor-trailer rig owned by D. P's car, which was in the slow lane, and was
passing on the truck's right. The truck made an unsafe lane change into P's lane, and its
front end hit P's car's left rear. The spun in front of the truck and was pushed sideways
across three lanes of traffic. P's car was struck by another vehicle before it stopped on
the shoulder, facing the wrong way. P walked away from the accident but her car was
seriously damaged. She continued her trip in a rental car, but she had suffered a
concussion, was disoriented, and was unable to handle her business affairs. P was a design
school graduate, owns a small but growing business that manufactures and markets lingerie
throughout California and in Las Vegas. P went to her doctor complaining of headaches, low
back pain, and a stiff neck. P saw five other doctors including a neurologist, a
psychiatrist, and an orthopedic surgeon. She had disabling neck pain, headaches, severe low
back pain, groin pain, and shooting pains down her legs. A soft tissue injury specialist
gave her cortisone shots in the lower back and sacroiliac joint, but she felt no lasting
relief. She had six chiropractic sessions that were of no help. P sued D and its employee
driver for personal injuries, property damage, and lost earnings. Ds conceded liability at
trial, and the only issue for the jury was damages. P asked the jury for $208,479 in special
damages, comprised of medical damages, temporary lost earnings, and property damage and
miscellaneous expenses. As for pain and suffering, P asked for an unspecified amount of
damages, including compensation for loss of enjoyment of life. P was 27 when the accident
occurred, was a star high school varsity athlete in volleyball, softball, and basketball.
Before the accident, she worked 10 to 11-hour days (including a night shift as a cocktail
waitress), played softball and volleyball 3 nights a week, and exercised at the gym every
day. After the accident, she could not sit at a sewing machine for longer than an hour
without pain, could not function as a cocktail waitress, could not play organized sports,
and could no longer water or snow ski, jog, or golf. Her social life, which had previously
revolved around her athletic activities, was severely impaired. Driving a car causes her jaw
to hurt. P's expert testified he had computed the basic economic value of life (apart from
one's earnings from employment). The expert calculated the value of an average person's
remaining 44-year life expectancy at $2.3 million, which he described as a baseline figure.
Smith adjusted the baseline figure to account for P's longer than average remaining life
expectancy of 53 years. He multiplied the adjusted baseline figure by various percentages
reflecting plaintiff's possible degrees of disability to calculate various possible hedonic
damage awards. Ds raised numerous grounds below for excluding the expert testimony but they
were denied. They included: (1) there is no consensus among experts in the field that a
scientific method for computing hedonic damages exists, (2) the method of computing hedonic
damages is not a matter for which expert testimony is admissible under Evidence Code section
801, such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative and would inflame the jury, (4)
the evidence is inadmissible under California law which prohibits a separate instruction on
loss of enjoyment of life damages and precludes a double recovery for pain and suffering and
loss of enjoyment of life, and (5) the evidence is speculative and invades the province of
the jury to compute the amount of general damages. The jury returned a general verdict for
plaintiff for $890,000. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment