Pain and Suffering Damages

A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that accompany or otherwise result from physical injury. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.) These injuries constitute the principal elements of tort personal injury damage, and an award failing to compensate an injured plaintiff where pain and suffering was present is inadequate as a matter of law. (Id.)

Pain and suffering is a unitary concept, encompassing all the physical discomfort and emotional trauma occasioned by an injury. (Id.) A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for all physical pain suffered and also for all resulting “fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, apprehension, terror or ordeal.” (Id.; Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 981.)

The absence of medical bills or medical testimony will not foreclose a recovery for pain and suffering. (Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 413.) Indeed, even in the absence of any explicit evidence showing pain, the jury may infer pain, if the injury is such that the jury in its common experience knows it is normally accompanied by pain. (Id.)

There is no standard for determining general damages. (Civ. Code of Proc., § 3359.) In fact, “no expert may supply a formula for computing the value of life and, by extrapolation, the value of the loss of enjoyment of life. That calculation, at present, must be left to the sound discretion of the jury.” (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 768.)

“Pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of the facts.” (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 [quoting Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269].) “Translating pain and anguish into dollars can, at best, be only an arbitrary allowance, and not a process of measurement, and consequently the judge can, in his instructions, give the jury no standard to go by; he can only tell them to allow such amount as in their discretion they may consider reasonable.... The chief reliance for reaching reasonable results in attempting to value suffering in terms of money must be the restraint and common sense of the jury.” (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764.) The only guideline is “a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense.” (Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 103; Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1332.)

Useful Rulings on Pain and Suffering Damages

Recent Rulings on Pain and Suffering Damages

226-250 of 750 results

KAMINSKI VS SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC

According to plaintiff's testimony, the information contained in the journal is directly relevant to plaintiff's claims, which is essential to determining the truth of plaintiff's claims for pain and suffering and other damages. This information is not available from any other source. There is good cause for the production of the journal. THEREFORE, the motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to produce the journal no later than February 22, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CARRASQUILLO VS BUTALA

“[A]n award that does not account for pain and suffering is ‘not necessarily inadequate as a matter of law,” and “[e]very case depends upon the facts involved.” (Dodson v. J. Pacific, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 931, 936 (citations omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS VS DAVID ARAMBULA

Plaintiff provides a general description of the damages incurred as follows: "I suffered a serious laceration above, my eye, a bite wound, a broken rib, and other injuries. I required stitches and a tetanus shot in addition to other treatment. I have substantial medical bills, as well as damages for pain and suffering and lost work." (Decl. City Manager, Exhibit A.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL SHIRAZI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered from “great mental . . . pain and suffering.” (Complaint at ¶ 11.) Defendants move to compel the mental examination of Plaintiff by psychologist Ari Kalechstein, Ph.D. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that he suffered from “short and long term memory loss.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

VICTOR MEJIA ET AL VS LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

A claim for pain and suffering does not automatically place a plaintiff’s mental condition at issue. (Davis v. Superior Court 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016.) However, when the pleadings or discovery responses directly place the plaintiff's mental condition at issue by seeking damages for emotional injuries, the production of otherwise privileged or private information about the plaintiff’s mental condition may be appropriate. (Id. at p. 1017; In re Lifschutz 2 Cal. 3d 415, 431.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

JOHN F GROSS VS DLI PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Ocwen and Deutsche Bank now demur to the sixth cause of action and move to strike the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action and the requests for declaratory relief; punitive damages; compensation for pain and suffering; emotional trauma and duress and the request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from the 5AC.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ANDREA PEARSON VS. HOTEL DEL CORONADO LP [E-FILE]

As to damages, the CDPH report indicates that of 68 people surveyed, the duration of illness ranged from 1 hour to 72 hours. (Decl. Harder, Exhibit 1.) The specific experiences of the attendees as far as expenses of medical expenses, travel expenses, and pain and suffering damages vary. Defendants cite Rose v. Medtronics, Inc. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 150 for support. In Rose the proposed class was users of potentially defective pacemakers.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PROGRESSIVE INS. CO. V. RECTOR

In the absence of evidence establishing the criminal court awarded restitution for pain and suffering, the injured person, Ms. Gabel, was not made whole by the restitution order and the $15,000 payment to Ms. Gabel and her attorney represents compensation for additional damages incurred as pain and suffering. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to credit his restitution payments against the amount owed to satisfy the judgment in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

WILLIE JAMES WHITE ET AL VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

The motion to strike Page 26:22 (general damages) is DENIED.. Plaintiff is entitled to plead recover of general damages (losses that necessarily or usually result from the acts alleged). While Plaintiff may not be entitled to recover for pain and suffering, this is usually referred to as non-economic damages, which are not specifically prayed for in the 1AC. [§ 933] General Damages Need Not Be Pleaded.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

HELEN MCDONALD VS MAXIMILIANO ESTRADA ET AL

Soft tissue injury and continuing pain and suffering were challenged by defendants at trial. Although Dr. Winthrop Smith and Ted Kobayashi work for the same office, Kobayashi (Accident Reconstruction) calculated the overall impact forces and Dr. Smith (Bio-Mechanical) used that evidence to calculate and testify that the said forces were beyond the threshold of injury in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HELEN MCDONALD VS MAXIMILIANO ESTRADA ET AL

Soft tissue injury and continuing pain and suffering were challenged by defendants at trial. Although Dr. Winthrop Smith and Ted Kobayashi work for the same office, Kobayashi (Accident Reconstruction) calculated the overall impact forces and Dr. Smith (Bio-Mechanical) used that evidence to calculate and testify that the said forces were beyond the threshold of injury in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WILLIE JAMES WHITE ET AL VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

The motion to strike Page 26:22 (general damages) is DENIED.. Plaintiff is entitled to plead recover of general damages (losses that necessarily or usually result from the acts alleged). While Plaintiff may not be entitled to recover for pain and suffering, this is usually referred to as non-economic damages, which are not specifically prayed for in the 1AC. [§ 933] General Damages Need Not Be Pleaded.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

GREGORY STESHENKO V. DE ANZA COLLEGE, ET AL.

As a result of said conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation. (Ibid.) As Defendants point out, such allegations constitute legal conclusions instead of ultimate facts. Plaintiff has not pled specific facts here to satisfy the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and state a cause of action. Therefore, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

MATTER OF GARVIN-SCHWAGERUS

In summary, judgment shall enter in plaintiff’s favor in the amounts of $9,508.64 for past and future medical expense, $150,000 for pain and suffering, and $150,000 for emotional distress. TENTATIVE RULING # 3: JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THE AMOUNTS OF $9,508.64 FOR PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSE, $150,000 FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $150,000 FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

MICHAEL ABKARIAN VS AW COLLISION SCI ET AL

In relevant part, Plaintiff contends that he has sustained and continues to sustain severe emotional pain and suffering, including but not limited to anguish, humiliation, anger, tension, anxiety, depression, insomnia and lowered self-esteem. (Id. ¶ 78.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEVEN REDE ET AL. VS EJ WILLIAMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

What the Defense ignores is that general damages covers a lot more than merely "pain and suffering". The CACI instruction is helpful here, and we can't know what exactly the jury decided under general damages since it covers a wide range of harm.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

KARNITA UNDERWOOD VS GREGORY BROWN ET AL

As a result, plaintiff was “permanently hurt in her health, strength and activity, sustaining severe injuries to her body, all of which said injuries have caused, continue to cause, and will in the future cause this Plaintiff great physical and emotional pain and suffering.” (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Trial is set for April 9, 2019. Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiff to submit to a mental examination before a psychiatrist, Dr. James Rosenberg, and a neuropsychologist, Dr. Ari Kalechstein.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

QUINTANILLA VS PRESTIGE STRIPING SERVICE

Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017–1018 (“Real party seeks any and all medical or hospital records relating to the care and treatment of petitioner to date; real party has made no attempt to limit the request to specific matters directly relevant to petitioner's pain and suffering from the physical injuries.”). For example, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is not claiming any physical injuries, yet the Subpoena would encompass medical records for wholly unrelated physical injuries.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

ALAN CERF V. WILLIAM WOODWARD, ET AL.,

Plaintiff seeks damages for hospital and medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Defendant Birnam Wood now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to plaintiff’s claims for general negligence and premises liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

MARICELA VALDIVIA VS BEST LABEL COMPANY INC

(Vinson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at 839 (concluding in a sexual harassment case that plaintiff’s mental state was in controversy because of plaintiff’s allegations of emotional and mental damages); see also Reuter v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332, 340 (complaint’s allegations of great mental pain and suffering put plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy).) Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a cause of action for IIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERARDO CASTILLA VS HECTOR JAVIER MARTINEZ ET AL

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries to his body and person which have caused and continue to cause him “great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 51.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only plead sufficient ultimate facts to state a claim. (City of Los Angeles, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 550.) These allegations are sufficient for Plaintiff to plead that he suffered serious emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2019

BRODY CURTIS VS LEEDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC ET AL

Despite the fact that the declaration is not admissible, pain and suffering and future medical expenses are at issue. While Plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of these contentions, this does not foreclose her from seeking to recover those damages. Most importantly, the Court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering, which he contends is ongoing. This Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that the case will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

QUINTANILLA VS. PRESTIGE STRIPING SERVICES, INC.

Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017–1018 (“Real party seeks any and all medical or hospital records relating to the care and treatment of petitioner to date; real party has made no attempt to limit the request to specific matters directly relevant to petitioner's pain and suffering from the physical injuries.”). For example, Defendants admit that Plaintiff is not claiming any physical injuries, yet the Subpoena would encompass medical records for wholly unrelated physical injuries.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

JOSH MARSH ET AL VS JEFF JOHNSON ET AL

Tillia was claiming severe emotional distress and psychological injury, well above that which would be considered normal pain and suffering from her physical complaints. However, the court indicated that if Ms. Tillia was prepared to stipulate that she is not claiming severe or extreme emotional distress or mental anxiety as part of her damages in the case, then it would grant the motion to quash. At the hearing on the motion, plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that Ms.

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2018

EUGENE SPENCER VS. SAFEGUARD P

In order to estimate Plaintiff’s total recovery, the Court must add some amount for Plaintiff’s pain and suffering and any future medical expenses. The Court must also consider a potential award of punitive damages against Ghoneim. An award of punitive damages would not be covered by Ghoneim’s insurance so any such award would have to be paid directly by Ghoneim. (See, e.g. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 30     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.