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

126-150 of 750 results

SHEPARD VS. PICK, ET AL

death, excluding pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

ADRIANA MARQUEZ ET AL VS MARGARITA VASQUEZ ET AL

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., 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). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) 4.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

The jury has spoken through its findings in the special verdict forms that expressly limited the damages recoverable against defendant Pederson and the special verdicts can only be reasonable construed in one way – that defendant Pederson was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff for injuries related to the low back injury claim and for any aggravation of the other injuries that will require future treatment and cause additional pain and suffering in the future.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

TILAHUN WONDIMU VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANS AUTHORITY

Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 (finding trial court abused its discretion in transferring case to municipal court where plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering in addition to economic damages). Defendant has not demonstrated hat Plaintiff’s damages, including Plaintiff’s claim for general damages, would necessarily result in a verdict of $25,000 or less. The motion is therefore DENIED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STARZ ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL. VS ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., ET AL.

The attorney who fails to protect his client’s right to sue for personal injury damages neither extends the client’s pain and suffering nor ‘aggravates’ his bodily injuries. [Citation.] The injury sustained by [plaintiff] as a result of [his attorney’s] negligence — loss of a right of action — is entirely distinct from the injury that was the immediate consequence of [the driver’s] negligence — physical injuries — and does not form a normal part of the aftermath of careless driving.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BIBBIE VS A-QUALITY TRANSPORT

Compensating the Plaintiff $2 million for this pain and suffering is not unreasonable, indeed, it accurately reflects the extent of her injuries. In short, the Court has considered all the evidence presented in this case. The Court finds that $2 million in past non-economic damages was in fact supported by the evidence. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

BROWN VS CRISHON

Defendant fails to take into account Plaintiff’s potential future medical damages (since Plaintiff recently received a re-evaluation) and general damages for pain and suffering, which Plaintiff continues to experience. As such, it is possible for Plaintiff to obtain a verdict of over $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269; Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277.) Defendant to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

XXXXXXXXXXXXX VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

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.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017–18.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEVENSON V. SHECKLER

Further, in a wrongful death action involving abuse or neglect of an elderly or dependent adult, damages for pain and suffering may be awarded. (§ 15657, subd. (b); Community Care and Rehabilitation Center v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 787, 792, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 343.)” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 82.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

The SAC alleges that both individual Plaintiffs “have incurred substantial damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to pain and suffering, emotional distress, anguish, anxiety and loss of reputation and business relationships.” (SAC, ¶ 107.) Here, the injury is not well pleaded and the demurrer is SUSTAINED. The eleventh cause of action for private nuisance.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

GREGORY E BUSTAMANTE VS GENARO SALAZAR ET AL

Plaintiff further argues that he is only claiming damages for pain and suffering under CACI 3905A and that Defendants would have known that had they reached out to ascertain why Plaintiff responded to discovery the way he did. In reply, Defendants argue that they met and conferred with Plaintiff over the discovery issues. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories contradict Plaintiff’s claim that he is only seeking general damages for pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THOMAS IMPLIAZZO ET AL VS BLUE CROSS OF CA INC ET AL

Plaintiffs allege that Cynthia was aware “that the bad faith denials were causing her husband to suffer extreme pain and suffering.” (TAC, ¶ 72.) For the purpose of a demurrer this is a sufficient allegation. Conclusion: Defendants’ demurrer to the second and third causes of action is SUSTAINED. Defendants’ demurrer to the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

FATEMI VS. A FAMILY DENTIST IN SAN MARCOS & CARLSBAD

Defendants FAMILY DENTIST's, DURKIN's, and DOES's 1 through 20 individual and joint breach of their duty was the proximate cause of FATEMI's pain and suffering and other damages. Id. at ¶ 56. The Court notes that the defendant's motion and supporting evidence fails to address the agency theory of vicarious liability. See CACI Jury Instruction No. 3709.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FATEMI VS. A FAMILY DENTIST IN SAN MARCOS & CARLSBAD

Defendants FAMILY DENTIST's, DURKIN's, and DOES's 1 through 20 individual and joint breach of their duty was the proximate cause of FATEMI's pain and suffering and other damages. Id. at ¶ 56. The Court notes that the defendant's motion and supporting evidence fails to address the agency theory of vicarious liability. See CACI Jury Instruction No. 3709.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

As to the claims for attorneys' fees on the first cause of action, pain and suffering damages under the second cause of action, and general and special damages on the sixth cause of action based on CC § 1942.4, the motion is moot as to this Defendant and he appears to have only been named under the fourth and ninth causes of action. Furthermore, those issues were addressed in the accompanying motion to strike filed by Defendant P&D Assets, LLC. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

With respect to pain and suffering damages on the second cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability the motion is granted without leave to amend. With respect to general and special damages on the sixth cause of action, damages are set by CC § 1942.4. As such, the motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

As to the claims for attorneys' fees on the first cause of action, pain and suffering damages under the second cause of action, and general and special damages on the sixth cause of action based on CC § 1942.4, the motion is moot as to this Defendant and he appears to have only been named under the fourth and ninth causes of action. Furthermore, those issues were addressed in the accompanying motion to strike filed by Defendant P&D Assets, LLC. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

With respect to pain and suffering damages on the second cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability the motion is granted without leave to amend. With respect to general and special damages on the sixth cause of action, damages are set by CC § 1942.4. As such, the motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

With respect to pain and suffering damages on the second cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability the motion is granted without leave to amend. With respect to general and special damages on the sixth cause of action, damages are set by CC § 1942.4. As such, the motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC

As to the claims for attorneys' fees on the first cause of action, pain and suffering damages under the second cause of action, and general and special damages on the sixth cause of action based on CC § 1942.4, the motion is moot as to this Defendant and he appears to have only been named under the fourth and ninth causes of action. Furthermore, those issues were addressed in the accompanying motion to strike filed by Defendant P&D Assets, LLC. Plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The value of his pain and suffering on its own is over $25,000.00. The motion is timely in that Plaintiff’s counsel substituted in as counsel of record in January, 2019 and this motion was filed in March, 2019. Defendant will not be prejudiced by reclassification at this time. ANALYSIS: On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff Luis Renee Boza (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Ocean King Fish, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer on January 8, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The value of his pain and suffering on its own is over $25,000.00. The motion is timely in that Plaintiff’s counsel substituted in as counsel of record in January, 2019 and this motion was filed in March, 2019. Defendant will not be prejudiced by reclassification at this time. ANALYSIS: On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff Luis Renee Boza (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Ocean King Fish, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer on January 8, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIIORIO V. WILLIAMS

The statement of damages served on defendant is attached as Exhibit A to each declaration, which asserts defendants sustained $500,000 in pain and suffering, $250,000 for emotional distress, $25,000 in medical expenses, $500,000 in future medical expenses, $10,000 in loss of earnings, and $150,000 in loss of future earnings. Plaintiff David Diiorio attached the bill for his single treatment of his injuries in the emergency room, which amounts of $3,167.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

HILDEBRAND V. EAN HOLDINGS, LLC

Plaintiff Rhonda Hildebrand seeks entry of a default judgment against defendants in the following amounts for the following damages: past medical expenses - $4,756.65; loss of personal property - $24,000; loss of use - $4,500; pain and suffering - $35,000; and emotional distress - $15,000. Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against defendants in the amount of $15,000 for loss of consortium.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

SCHWARTZ V. GHC OF NEWPORT BEACH, LLC

Defendant GHC argues correctly that prejudgment interest is typically only allowed in contract actions where damages are certain or cable of being made certain. (Civ. Code 3287 (a).) But this is not the case in a tort suit for bodily harm, personal injury, or pain and suffering. (Greater Westchester HOA v. Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 102; Curtis v. State of California (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 668.) In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that under the plain language of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  « 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.