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

726-745 of 745 results

WHITELOCK VS PACIFIC PLASTIC SURGERY

KELLER OPPOSITION: It is unnecessary to file a 4AC to specifically state the non-economic damages which survived the motions to strike, since the Court clearly referred to damages for decedent’s pain and suffering which are not recoverable in a survival claim or wrongful death claim. The Court can simply clarify its order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2011

KAREN LOOMIS ET AL VS RAYMOND ARIAS CONSTRUCTION ET AL

Plaintiffs allege the chemicals are the proximate cause of their injuries, pain and suffering and lost earnings. In a second cause of action, plaintiffs allege that a res ipsa loquitur presumption of defendants’ negligence arises under Evid. Code § 646. Perez’ Cross-complaint: Francisco Perez filed a cross-complaint for contribution, indemnity and declaratory relief against cross-defendant Harvard Chemical Research, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2011

MURIEL TAYLOR ET AL VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL ET AL

She seeks only the pain and suffering that the jury feels is objectively available for her experience as described in CACI 3905A. She will not ask that the jury be given CACI 431. Muriel Taylor is not tendering her subjective pain or emotional distress, but a reasonable person’s pain or emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2011

VERONICA ORTEGA VS RAMON TAN ET AL

At least for purposes of this motion, plaintiff and Moving Defendants agree that the total amount of special damages claimed by plaintiff is $4,973.04. Moving Defendants make no argument as to the amount of general pain and suffering damages, and in particular provide no argument why the amount of pain and suffering damages, together with the special damages, could not possibly exceed $25,000.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2011

WESLEY WHITELOCK ETC VS PACIFIC PLASTIC SURGERY ETC

Motions to strike The motions to strike general damages from the 1st (negligence) and 2nd (wrongful death) causes of action are granted. This court has previously stricken from these claims general damages for pain and suffering, which are legally unavailable to plaintiffs in those claims. The motions to strike punitive damages for failure to comply with CCP § 425.13 are granted, except as to the claim for such damages against Dr. Keller in the elder abuse cause of action, which has survived demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2010

CIFUENTES VS COSTCO

Costco points out that Cifuentes’ damages are limited to contract damages if he is able to prove liability. Those damages are limited to the usual contract damages, and further reduced by his failure to mitigate his damages. Costco emphasis that punitive damages, emotional distress damages, pain and suffering damages, or other non-economic damages are not available under a breach of contract theory or a theory of breach of implied covenant for fair dealing. 7. Index of jury instructions requested.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2010

WESLEY WHITELOCK ETC VS PACIFIC PLASTIC SURGERY ETC

To the extent that the prayer for “general damages” is interpreted as seeking damages for decedent’s pain and suffering, such damages will be deemed stricken from the cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2010

JESUS RODRIGUEZ ET AL VS MEGAN MILLER ET AL

She argues that the claims of Sofia, Yesenia and Adrian Rodriguez are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they filed small claims actions (Case ## 1303193 & 1303194) for medical bills and pain and suffering incurred in the same accident and their cases were dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence on January 26, 2009. Miller demurs to the complaint of Jesus Rodriguez on the ground that there is another action pending.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2010

JOHN WEYHE VS. WAL-MART STORES INC

Plaintiff points to the extensive evidence introduced to support his claim of pain and suffering both before and after his termination. The Court has independently reviewed all of the evidence presented.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2010

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LILLIAN CORWIN VS. LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

According to the prayer, plaintiffs seek recovery on this count for loss of companionship and the decedent's pain and suffering. However, these grounds for liability are adequately pled in the first and second causes of action, and appropriately separated into distinct counts. While the fifth cause of action is specifically designated as one for "professional negligence," the underlying right of action remains negligence, professional or otherwise.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GUERRERO V. HARBOR MEAT & SEAFOOD

Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity: Plaintiff describes the damages he seeks in ¶¶ 22-28 of the complaint. These include physical and mental pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost earnings and benefits, future inability to obtain gainful employment and punitive damages. In his prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks general, special and punitive damages and past and future lost earnings. He also seeks injunctive relief in the form on an order compelling his reinstatement to employment with Harbor.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2010

MICHELLE DUCKETT VS PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY

Also as in Davis, “the materials sought must be directly relevant to the issue of pain and suffering associated with the physical injuries petitioner sustained.” Id. at 1017. In this case, plaintiff has expressly limited her claims to “‘regular’ pain and suffering” and “was not pursuing any claim for aggravation/exacerbation” or “depression- type claim.” (Fenton Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash, ¶ 5; Fenton Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel, ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2010

MARIA JUAREZ VS. GLENWOOD CARE CENTER

. , and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse, ... in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law,' (1) the plaintiff can recover attorney fees, and (2) if the elder is deceased, his or her successor can recover damages for the elder's pain and suffering while still alive. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.)" Smith v. Ben Bennett, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1507, 1517.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2009

JONATHAN COLEMAN VS. HENRY LEE JENNINGS

Pacific, Inc. supra at 938) Having exercised its independent judgment, the Court is convinced that the amount of damages is inadequate. The jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. The Court finds that the reasonable amount of damages for pain and suffering is $15,000. The jury found plaintiff was 40 per cent responsible for his injuries. Therefore the amount payable for non-economic damages is $9000.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DOROTHY HUNTER VS FRIENDSHIP ADULT DAY CARE CENTER ET AL

Plaintiff’s statement of damages asserts pain and suffering and emotional distress damages totaling $1.75 million. Her 5/7/09 case management statement sets forth economic damages of > $650,000, for total damages claimed of $2.4 million. Easy Lift’s settlement is < 3% of the pain and suffering and emotional distress claim, and about 2% of total claimed damages. There are no facts to suggest its proportionate liability is 2-3%.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2009

DOROTHY HUNTER VS FRIENDSHIP ADULT DAY CARE CENTER ET AL

Easy Lift does not address the factor, except to say that the settlement was intended to compensate plaintiff for her pain and suffering. The gross amount of any settlement in an action subject to Prop 51 must be within the reasonable range ballpark of the settling defendant’s liability for (1) 100% of the economic damages suffered by plaintiff, and (2) the “ballpark” share of noneconomic damages for which the settling defendant is personally at fault. Espinoza v. Machnonga (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 268, 276.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2009

SMITH V CLIFF VIEW TERRACE ET AL

The “survival action” requires the Elder Abuse Act for its remedies of pre-death pain and suffering damages and attorneys’ fees. In addition, plaintiff seeks punitive damages, and states her own claim for wrongful death. The only claim that includes Dr. Omlid is the fifth cause of action for wrongful death.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2009

JAKE WORKMAN VS. CASSIDYS FAMILY RESTAURANT

Moreover, in the event that plaintiff did not survive until his trial various claims and categories of potential damages including pain and suffering and disfigurement would be lost to his heirs.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VICTORIA STARKEY VS. DWIGHT FAULDING ET AL

Absent the citation of any authority denying the defense, the court overrules the demurrer on this ground. 9th: Defendants assert a defense of W&I section 15657(b), which references CC section 3333.2, the MICRA $250,000 limitation on pain and suffering in actions against health care providers based on professional negligence. Section 3333.2 by its terms applies only to an action against a ?health care provider,? as expressly defined. Plaintiff alleges that the public guardian?

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2006

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CHUI MING CHU VS. GEE POY KUO ASSOCIATION ET AL

STRIKE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RELATING TO PAIN AND SUFFERING. (302/AJR/AA)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2002

  « first    1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.