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

76-100 of 750 results

CERVANTES-ARRIBART VS PIERCE

Plaintiff alleges the conclusion that Defendant's actions caused her "severe emotional distress and mental pain and suffering," but does not allege any specific facts to support such a conclusion. (Complaint, ¶ 43.) The Court sustains the demurrer. "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule...." (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERVANTES-ARRIBART VS PIERCE

Plaintiff alleges the conclusion that Defendant's actions caused her "severe emotional distress and mental pain and suffering," but does not allege any specific facts to support such a conclusion. (Complaint, ¶ 43.) The Court sustains the demurrer. "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule...." (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERVANTES-ARRIBART VS PIERCE

Plaintiff alleges the conclusion that Defendant's actions caused her "severe emotional distress and mental pain and suffering," but does not allege any specific facts to support such a conclusion. (Complaint, ¶ 43.) The Court sustains the demurrer. "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule...." (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERVANTES-ARRIBART VS PIERCE

Plaintiff alleges the conclusion that Defendant's actions caused her "severe emotional distress and mental pain and suffering," but does not allege any specific facts to support such a conclusion. (Complaint, ¶ 43.) The Court sustains the demurrer. "Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule...." (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALCOR LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION VS KARL E PILGERAM ET AL

If an injured plaintiff is not claiming mental or emotional distress damages over and above that usually associated with the type of injuries alleged in the complaint, i.e., there is no claim for severe emotional distress, only general pain and suffering, the plaintiff’s mental condition as a general rule is not sufficiently “in controversy” to require the plaintiff to undergo a mental examination. See, Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 309, 337-339.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HERNANDEZ V. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL.

Unlike the initial complaint filed in Quiroz, which unambiguously alleged only the survivor’s pain and suffering, the complaint here contained allegations that CRESTWOOD’s conduct “caused Plaintiff to suffer all damages recoverable under the Elder Abuse Act, including, without limitation, economic damages, general damages, including pain, suffering, and emotional distress, punitive damages, treble damages and attorney fees, and costs of suit” [Complaint, ¶24].

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

AURORA LEMERE, ET AL. VS LISA JEWETT, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint specifically alleges “physical ailments,” “injuries to health, strength and activities,” “severe shock to her [his] nervous system” and “physical and nervous pain and suffering” as some of the damages they suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct. (Compl., ¶¶26, 34, 47, 54, 59, 60.) Notably, although the Complaint alleges causes of action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy and infliction of emotional distress, the gravamen of all the claims is malicious prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

AURORA LEMERE, ET AL. VS LISA JEWETT, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint specifically alleges “physical ailments,” “injuries to health, strength and activities,” “severe shock to her [his] nervous system” and “physical and nervous pain and suffering” as some of the damages they suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct. (Compl., ¶¶26, 34, 47, 54, 59, 60.) Notably, although the Complaint alleges causes of action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy and infliction of emotional distress, the gravamen of all the claims is malicious prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOYCE L. NICHOLAS, ET AL. V. LOPISENI FANGALOKA, ET AL.

The primary reason for making a claim under the Elder/Dependent Abuse Act is to recover enhanced remedies, including pre-death pain and suffering, attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages. These enhanced remedies are available under section 15657 but only “[w]here it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for … neglect as defined in section 15610.57 … and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

ESTEBAN MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, VS 13333 FENTON AVENUE, LLC , ET AL.

As a result, MENDEZ fell which caused him a seizure, a stroke with hemorrhagic conversion, and extreme pain and suffering. (1AC ¶ 35.) The Court is not convinced that this allegation rises to the level of culpability required by § 3294.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGELINA LONGSTRETH V. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

It is not clear what plaintiff means by “garden variety emotional distress damages.” The California case she cites in her reply are not helpful. In Davis v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 1008 (1992), the court used the term “garden-variety” to describe the nature of the motor vehicle personal injury action, not the damages sought. Id. at 1015. That court noted that the plaintiff limited “her claim for emotional distress to pain and suffering associated with stated physical injuries.” Id. at 1017.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

MATTHEW CHARVAT VS. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING LLC

John Strona & Sons (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 705) The court will order a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering and past emotional distress only. The Motion is denied as to the other grounds raised.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IVALYNN THOMPSON VS REGAL NAIL SALON

Thus, there is potential for increased damages as discovery proceeds and more information is provided regarding future medical treatment. Moreover, Plaintiff is alleging $22,000.00 in lost wages, and is also requesting damages in her complaint for pain and suffering, which are by their nature indefinite, and could possibly increase Plaintiff’s damages beyond the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

STEPHANIE LEONOR VS TERESA SAUCEDO, ET AL.

The FAC adds the allegations that “Plaintiff contends that Springman knew he struck Plaintiff with his vehicle and fled the scene of the incident without rendering aid to Plaintiff pursuant to CVC § 20001 and § 20003,” and Plaintiff “suffered injuries due to Springman’s failure to render aid including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, aggravated injuries due to the delay in medical treatment, and emotional distress.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

JOSEPH J FACCIANO JR VS PAULINE FACCIANO ET AL

. §377.34 does not permit the estate to recover specific damages for decedent’s pain and suffering, California law permits the estate representative to seek punitive damages for the violation of decedent’s rights. Id., at 186. Also, under Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

ARVIN KAZARYAN VS GATEWAY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL INC.

Motion to Strike General Damages Moving defendants seek to strike the portions of the SAC which refer to general damages, arguing that plaintiff is not entitled to pain and suffering, emotional distress, or general damages. Defendants rely on McMahon v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

SMITH VS LIFSET

With regard to prejudice if Plaintiff were to pass away and lose the ability to claim damages for pain and suffering, the evidence does not establish any likelihood of such passing (other than Plaintiff's advanced age). As such, Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing under subdivision (a).

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PERKINS V. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Where plaintiff claims only a “garden variety” personal injury case seeking compensation for “pain and suffering,” her mental condition is not at issue. Davis v. Sup. Ct. (Williams) (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016. Finally, a party can also avoid putting mental condition in controversy by disclaiming any “unusual” mental suffering “over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed” and agreeing not to provide expert information regarding the issue at trial.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

SNELL V. QUINN

. § 662.5(a)(1) An award that does not account for pain and suffering is not necessarily inadequate as a matter of law; every case must turn on the facts involved. Dodson v. J.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

ROBERT MURRAY ET AL VS MANUEL MENDOZA TEJADA

· Plaintiffs seek to recover $400,000 in general damages. Plaintiffs must provide specific evidence concerning their pain and suffering and emotional distress if they wish to support this request. · The new e-filing system includes an “Outlines” function that allows parties to create virtual tabs for exhibits, declarations, etc. Counsel must use this function in order to effectuate easier review of the papers in support of default judgment.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

RITA M CABEZA ET AL VS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ET AL

Minaein argue that the 2nd cause of action is duplicative of the medical malpractice cause of action because the medical malpractice/professional negligence claim would potentially cover emotional distress, as well as physical pain and suffering. They argue that NIED is not an independent tort and is simply considered a part of her medical malpractice claim, citing to Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAVANAH E BURSON ET AL VS JENNIFER GRAY ET AL

Ohern’s responses to Form Interrogatories 6.1-6.7 do not indicate that she is seeking damages for pain and suffering that go beyond a general claim for pain and suffering. The claimed injuries are mostly physical with neurological effect. (See Zadoorian Decl., Ex. B., Responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.1-6.2.) There is no evidence that Ohern treated with any psychologist or psychiatrist as a result of the accident. (See Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

CORTLAND T DAY VS CITY OF CARPINTERIA

“General damages include damages for ‘ “pain [and] suffering, emotional distress, and other forms of detriment that are sometimes characterized as subjective or not directly quantifiable.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] By contrast, special damages do not necessarily arise from the typical infliction of the injury and are instead the ‘out-of-pocket losses’ ‘ “peculiar to the infliction of each respective injury.” ’ [Citation.] Special damages include medical and related expenses as well as lost income.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS JOSEPH EDWARD GIANCASPRO

Plaintiff contends that medical bills are still being incurred and Plaintiff suffered loss of her eye, which is causing her significant pain and suffering. Plaintiff states that the new information was brought forth in Plaintiff’s deposition on May 1, 2019, where it was revealed that there was a link between Defendant’s negligence and Plaintiff’s blindness in one eye.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUGO V. HORIZON HEALTH

Likewise, section 15657, subdivision (b) allows general, i.e., “pain and sufferingdamages where this is proven, even where the elder has died: the limitations of Civil Code section 337.34 are expressly exempted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.