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

201-225 of 745 results

CHERYL TAYLOR VS PRECIOUS SHENEE SHERIFF ET AL

Further, Plaintiff seeks general damages for pain and suffering, which are typically calculated as a multiplier of special damages. Magill argues there is outstanding discovery regarding the actual extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, and this application for good faith settlement cannot be granted where the parties are entitled to conduct discovery as to Plaintiff’s injuries and Sheriff’s financial condition.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

STEVEN GOMILLION VS J'S JUICE MASTERS INC ET AL

In ruling on a motion to reclassify, the Court may not properly “trespass into the province of the trier of fact” and in particular, “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 facts.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401-402 [“The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test”].)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GEORGE SHEN VS STEVEN MARCANO

BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 5:89.2.) “’General damages’ includes pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of privacy and other ‘subjective’ detriment that is not directly quantifiable.” (Ibid.) “Future losses that cannot be fixed with certainty (e.g, loss of future earnings, or future possessory interests in land) are ‘general damages.’” (Id. at ¶5:89.3).

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SERGEY MOSEYCHUK VS. DAVID YU

Thus, the mere award of diagnostic expenses does not even support a conclusion of injury, much less compensable pain and suffering. Irregularity (Dr. Serina) An "'irregularity in the proceedings' is a catchall phrase referring to any act that (1) violates the right of a party to a fair trial and (2) which a party cannot fully present by exceptions taken during the progress of the trial, and which must therefore appear by affidavits." (Montova v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229-1230.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JANE SMITH, ET AL. VS LYLE BURGESS

Any questions regarding non-economic damages such as pain and suffering were not at issue. As a result, the cross-examination of the minor was only twenty-two pages long. On the other hand, the minor’s ability to remember what occurred and to recall what she told others was quite limited. Plaintiff has indicated that he will be asking for a verdict many millions dollars. With such high stakes, the court will not reduce the seven hour time limit provided by the Discovery Act.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

SVETLANA LEWIS VS XXXXXXXXXXXX ET AL

As to the merits of the request, Plaintiff requests general damages for $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and emotional distress. This request is unsupported by the evidence. The only evidence Plaintiff provides for emotional distress is the conclusory statement “Defendants actions caused me to suffer severe emotional distress mentally and emotionally.” (Lewis Decl., ¶ 18.) This conclusion is not evidence of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

LEAH WOOLFOLK VS UNITY E MEDICAL CLINIC INC

While the court makes no factual determinations at this time, Plaintiff’s contentions show that special damages for pain and suffering and future non-economic harm could exceed $25,000 on their own. Further, the cause of action for fraud could impose punitive damages against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

DAVID GINGOLD VS THE REHABILTATION

Defendant hired, trained and supervised in a negligent and careless manner its agents and representatives including occupational therapist Tavett who was responsible for such negligent and intentional acts in the course and scope of his employment that resulted in damages to Plaintiff including further medical costs for subsequent treatment including pain and suffering . . . . (First Amended Complaint, p. 5:7-12.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

PANO VS. HUNTINGTON BEACH NISSAN LLC

Pano’s alleged damages include lost wages and pain and suffering. The Court is mindful of Plaintiff Pano’s concerns about contacts with her employer and/or co-workers, and this order is made without prejudice to Plaintiff Pano seeking a protective order and sanctions against Defendant if Defendant appears to be abusing the discovery process with regard to Plaintiff Pano’s co-workers or managers.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

WALL VS WATERMARK

Emotional Distress Damages: Pursuant to CCP §377.34 decedent’s pre-death emotional distress and pain and suffering is precluded. Accordingly, the court strikes request number 4 without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

SCOTT, FRANK VS ANDREWS, MARY

Plaintiff Callins states that her total damages, based on medical expenses and lost wages, total approximately $22,000.00. (Motion, Callins Decl., ¶3 and Exhs. A-B.) She also states she has incurred about $10,000.00 in general damages for pain and suffering. (Id. at ¶4.) Similarly, Plaintiff Scott states that his lost wages amount to $15,118.49 and claims $13,000.00 for pain and suffering. (Motion, Scott Decl., ¶¶3-4 and Exhs. A-B.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRUCE E. TIEMAN VS KENNETH DAWSON CHASE

Plaintiffs also claim defendants inflicted long lasting emotional distress, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, concern for safety, pain, and suffering based on defendants’ false citizen arrest and defendant Bruce’s incarceration for over 24 hours. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, including past and future psychological therapy expenses. Plaintiffs attach to the operative pleading a copy of plaintiffs’ initial psychological evaluation and recommendation for further psychological therapy and treatment.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ABELINA GONZALEZ ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

and pain and suffering.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TOMAS H. KNIGHT VS. BELLO GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING, ET AL

On the same proof, a plaintiffwho sues as the personal representative or successor in interest ofa deceased elder is partially relieved of the limitation on damages imposed by Code ofCivil Procedure section 377.34 and may recover damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657, subd. (b).)” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (201 1) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 404.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

TOMAS H. KNIGHT VS. BELLO GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING, ET AL

On the same proof, a plaintiffwho sues as the personal representative or successor in interest ofa deceased elder is partially relieved of the limitation on damages imposed by Code ofCivil Procedure section 377.34 and may recover damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657, subd. (b).)” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (201 1) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 404.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

DAVID GINGOLD VS THE REHABILTATION

The Act provides certain enhanced remedies, including recovery of attorney fees and costs, as well as damages for pain and suffering, if a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence both that a defendant is liable for physical abuse, neglect, or financial abuse, and that the defendant is guilty of “recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice” in the commission of that abuse. (Carter v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

LUZ M PEREZ VS RICARDO ANTONIO BARBOSA

Further, her responses to interrogatories indicate that she is alleging physical and emotional pain and suffering. She also alleges injury to her body in the complaint and prays for general damages. California Civil Jury Instructions 14.13 on general damages states: “No definite standard [or method of calculation] is prescribed by law by which to fix reasonable compensation for pain and suffering.” Further, “Compensatory damages may be awarded for bodily harm without proof of pecuniary loss. . . .

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BURGO, ET AL. V. DIAMOND RESORTS HOLDING, LLC, ET AL.

.”; (2) page 5, line 1 – “mental pain and suffering and”; (3) page 5, lines 5-6 - “He has also incurred mental pain and suffering.”; (4) page 6, line 11 – “mental pain and suffering”; (5) page 8, line 1 – “mental pain and suffering,”; (6) page 11, lines 20-21 – “mental pain and suffering,”; (7) page 14, line 15 – “mental pain and suffering,”; and (8) page 17, line 14 – “mental pain and suffering,”.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

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

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

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

  « 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.