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

151-175 of 750 results

JAMES BOEHM VS INTEX RECREATION CORP

It states plaintiff is claiming physical injury and the connected general damages. The fact that Plaintiff is not claiming “psychiatric” injury – compensation for psychiatric treatment – does not mean he is not seeking emotional injury above and beyond pain and suffering connected to his physical injury. The response was more in the way of avoiding a waiver than a complete and straightforward response. Plaintiff must identify every type of injury for which he is seeking compensation.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

LORETA S TUPARAN VS GOLDEN CROSS HEALTH CARE 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

    Aug 02, 2019

KARLA VILLA VS JEKO BEHFARIN ET AL

As a result, she alleges that she suffered extreme and severe mental anguish, humiliation, pain and suffering, emotional instability, severe anxiety, sleeplessness, guilt, depression, fear and mistrust of men, decreased sexual interest, and emotional sensitivity. (Id., ¶18.) At the pleading stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Dr. Behfarian’s conduct was outrageous, and that she suffered emotional distress. The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARISSA D'ONOFRIO VS NANCY COLLET, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ actions caused her to have health issues such as pain and suffering, shock to her nervous system, and injury to her health. (Id. at ¶ 17.) The complaint states a claim for punitive damages with supporting facts based on malice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LYDIA VALDEZ VS KIM HAMLETT 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

    Jul 30, 2019

ALAN CERF V. WILLIAM WOODWARD, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks damages for hospital and medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering On February 23, 2017, plaintiff filed his complaint for negligence against defendants Woodward and Birnam Wood Golf Club. On January 9, 2019, the court granted Birnam Wood Golf Club’s motion for summary judgment. MSC is scheduled for August 9 and trial for October 7, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2019

KINDBERG VS RUDNICK

The matter was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict on 6/20/19, in the amount of $2,777.52 in past economic losses (medical expenses of $100.00 and first responder costs of $2,677.52), nothing for pain and suffering or future noneconomic losses, and nothing for punitive damages. Both sides have filed a memorandum of costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY V. KB HOME SOUTH BAY, INC., ET AL.

The transcripts of Barrera’s deposition testimony and the progress reports from Barrera’s primary treating physician address Barrera’s ongoing pain and suffering such that those documents are responsive to RPD No. 7. (Ntc. of Lodging, Volumes I-III [Bates stamp numbers 000544-000619, 000943-000948, 000959, 000984-000987, 001018, 001020, 001022, 001024, 001354, 001360, 001362, 001411-001419, and 001459].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

FAYE SISKEL VS ASTORIA 2 ET AL

The Elder Abuse Act permits heightened remedies, including damages for pain and suffering, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, thus the Plaintiff must plead and prove “conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of punitive damages” under Civil Code section 3294. (See Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 771, 779-780; Welf. & Inst. § 15657.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Since the Elder Abuse Act permits heightened remedies, including damages for pain and suffering, attorney’s fees and punitive damages, the Plaintiff must plead and prove “conduct essentially equivalent to conduct that would support recovery of punitive damages” under Civil Code section 3294. (See Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 771, 779-780; Welf. & Inst. § 15657.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

VIDA MAHROUYAN VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

Here, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property because of State Farm’s acts and omissions, “including the unreasonable and unlawful deprivation of policy benefits, as well as mental and emotional pain and suffering.” (See Compl., ¶¶ 49-50.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PATRICIA MELTON VS CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC ET AL

Damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable on behalf of decedent: In an action or proceeding by a decedent's personal representative or successor in interest on the decedent's cause of action, the damages recoverable are limited to the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2019

ANTOINE TAYLOR VS VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL ET AL

Plaintiff explains that while he seeks to recover damages for his emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff only makes a claim for a “garden variety emotion distress,” which does not include any claims of physical injury or require any expert testimony to prove.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

THE ESTATE OF KNARIK MATOSIAN, BY AND THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE, VS MICHELE M. COSGROVE, ET AL.

Page 6, “physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries.” Page 7, “physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries.” The court has discretion to strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter in any pleading or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 436.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Page 6, “physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries.” Page 7, “physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries.” The court has discretion to strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter in any pleading or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 436.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

ESPARZA VS WIN DISTRIBUTION INC

Court conditionally grants new trial on future noneconomic damages as to Plaintiff Crystal Ritchie unless Plaintiff consents to reduce future noneconomic damages to $250,000 within 30 days of the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 662.5.) Otherwise, the court denies the motion. Court finds that $250,000 for past economic damages is reasonable and supported by the evidence, based on the pain and suffering caused by the accident and Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

LAVELL JONES VS TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL.

In Davis, the petitioner and her husband filed a complaint for general damages for pain and suffering arising out of personal injuries she had incurred in an automobile accident. (Davis, supra, at pp. 1011, 1015.) The defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle, subpoenaed all of plaintiff’s treatment records from the Cedar Women’s Center. (Id. at p. 1011.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

NICOLAS GARCIA MARTINEZ VS STEPHANIE SOTELO ET AL

Garcia states he seeks medical damages of $3,451.95, pain and suffering damages of $80,000.00, and loss of income of $700.00. However, Garcia seeks judgment in the amount of $180,000.00 and does not provide evidence showing loss of income. Martinez states his medical expenses totaled $150,000.00 with a Medi-Cal lien of $9,611.58, general damages of $100,000.00, and loss of income of $16,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHARON GREEN, ET AL. V. MARY LONG BERRY, ET AL.

Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863) does not place mental condition at issue as part of a claim merely by the filing of a personal injury action seeking damages for pain and suffering (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016). A defendant does not make any claim but merely defends against the claim of the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2019

STEPHANIE BERGNER VS KALY TICE ET AL

Defendants argue there is “good cause” for production of all Plaintiff’s mental health records because she pled that she has suffered “great mental, physical and nervous strain, pain and suffering.” Notably, where a plaintiff makes no claim of mental or emotional distress, a “garden variety” personal injury action seeking damages for “pain and suffering” does not place the plaintiff's mental condition in issue.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

Defendant argues that the allegations in the SAC do not support requests for Nasser’s pain and suffering, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs, thus are not permitted pursuant to the Elder Abuse Act and should be stricken. (Id. at p. 7:10-16.) Defendant argues that the “request for treble damages in the prayer should also be stricken as improper and irrelevant” because “[t]here are no facts alleged as to Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSCAR PEREZ PALACIOS VS ELITE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP

Finally, the total amount of payments to be made by Moving Defendants reflect a reasonable and good faith settlement when compared to Plaintiff’s economic damages. Plaintiff contends he should recover a total of about $437,000 in medical expenses, past wage loss and lost future earning capacity, plus non-economic damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff claims his special medical damages approximate $150,000. (McCalla Decl., ¶ 6l.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

LUIS RENEE BOZA VS OCEAN KING FISH, INC., ET AL.

REPLY: Plaintiff’s damages are not limited to his medical damages, but include his general damages for ongoing pain and inconvenience. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

REPLY: Plaintiff’s damages are not limited to his medical damages, but include his general damages for ongoing pain and inconvenience. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID WEI LIN ET AL VS DEYUN SHI

. §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

    May 24, 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.