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

Rulings on Pain and Suffering Damages

1-25 of 750 results

NINA ALLISON ET AL VS DR ROBERT DAR-TEH LIOU ET AL

Page 4, lines 14-15: “and pain and suffering to them oppression justifies granting of punitive damages in addition to damages for pain and suffering”; 5. Page 5, line 16: “damages for pain and suffering”; and 6. Page 5, line 20: “damages for pain and suffering”. Defendant argues that plaintiffs seek damages in the SAC that are not recoverable and which were stricken in the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

ORTIZ VS LEE

In Davis, the Court observed, at page 1011, that "the mere act of filing a personal injury action asking for general damages for pain and suffering does not tender the plaintiff's mental condition so as to make discoverable post-injury psychotherapeutic records." The Court further stated, at pages 1015 - 1017: We recognize that an allegation of pain and suffering from a physical injury permits a party to recover for a range of emotional injuries.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRYANT HOWARD V. JENNIFER BOHN

Pain and Suffering A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that accompany or otherwise result from physical injury. 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. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

NINA ALLISON ET AL VS DR ROBERT DAR-TEH LIOU ET AL

Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED as to FAC, page 2, line 18: “great and mental suffering and pain”; page 2, line 19: “suffered great pain and suffering”; page 2, line 25: “pain and suffering”; page 3, line 14: “said practices caused her great pain and suffering prior to her death”; page 3, line 17: “damages for pain and suffering”; and page 3, line 18: “damages for pain and suffering”. Punitive Damages Finally, defendant seeks to strike all references to punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

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

JAMES COOK VS STEVEN YORK

Moreover, Plaintiff does not provide any competent evidence to prove up any of his damages, including his past medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost wages, and future lost wages. Moreover, there is no evidence to support his request for $2,763,368 in damages for pain and suffering. ((See Duarte v. Zachariah (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1652, 1664-1665 [the standard for determining compensation for pain and suffering is based on what a reasonable person would estimate as fair compensation].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LISA J BROWN VS EDMOND AREVALO ET AL

Plaintiff’s pain and suffering are at issue. The Court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering, which, even if limited at five months, would necessitate their translation into money damages, a function for the factfinder. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 262.; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

WARREN PETERSON VS. LORENA IVONNE HERNANDEZ

In this personal injury action, the jury rendered a verdict awarding Plaintiff $135,951.98 in damages, including $75,000 for future pain and suffering. Defendant moves for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the verdict was against the law, and that damages were excessive. (CCP § 657(5)-(6).) All three grounds are based on the identical argument that there was no evidence to support the $75,000 award for future pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HERNAN OSORIO VS WESLEY T WILLIAMS ET AL

Defendants seek partial JNOVs on the jury’s awards for future medical expenses ($10,000) and future noneconomic damages ($665,000). With respect to future noneconomic damages (pain and suffering): One of the most difficult tasks imposed upon a jury in deciding a case involving personal injuries is to determine the amount of money the plaintiff is to be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IKE OKONKWO ET AL VS COZYMELS COASTAL MEXICAN GRILL

They also note that it is difficult to award an amount of pain and suffering damages and emotional distress damages. Defendant, in reply, argues the claimed need for future medical treatment is not adequately supported, and also that claimed pain and suffering/emotional distress is not sufficient to show the possibility of an award in excess of $25,000.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

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

JARVIS SHELBY VS MARY GOODIE ET AL

Past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering are simply listed as $500,000 each with no indication of how counsel reached those figures.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2012

MATTER OF GARVIN-SCHWAGERUS

In summary, judgment shall enter in plaintiff’s favor in the amounts of $9,508.64 for past and future medical expense, $150,000 for pain and suffering, and $150,000 for emotional distress. TENTATIVE RULING # 3: JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THE AMOUNTS OF $9,508.64 FOR PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSE, $150,000 FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $150,000 FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

LAZARO RUEDA V. JULIO ORDONEZ

Pain and Suffering A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that company or otherwise result from physical injury. 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. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KRISTIN HARRIS VS. VICTOR MANUEL OLIVA

As a general rule, jury determinations as to the amount of damages necessary to compensate a plaintiff for pain and suffering are afforded considerable deference, and such awards are usually only found to be inadequate where either (a) no pain and suffering damages were awarded at all; or (b) the award was so small as to appear to constitute a token award. (See, e.g., Dodson v. J. Pacific, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 931, 935-939.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

KRISTIN HARRIS VS. VICTOR MANUEL OLIVA

As a general rule, jury determinations as to the amount of damages necessary to compensate a plaintiff for pain and suffering are afforded considerable deference, and such awards are usually only found to be inadequate where either (a) no pain and suffering damages were awarded at all; or (b) the award was so small as to appear to constitute a token award. (See, e.g., Dodson v. J. Pacific, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 931, 935-939.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

VALENTINO BUTTARAZZI VS RODNEY MEDINILLA

App. 4th 931, in which the Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge’s denial of a new trial motion for inadequacy of damages, where the jury awarded nothing to plaintiff for pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

GARY MESROPIAN ET AL VS MICHELLE RENEE BLACK ET AL

.”]; Dodson, 154 Cal.App.4th at 938 [“A plaintiff who is subjected to a serious surgical procedure must necessarily have endured at least some pain and suffering in connection with the surgery. While the extent of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering is for the jury to decide, common experience tells us it cannot be zero.”]

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ETAN MILLER VS JOLANTA WALTER

The plaintiff sought several million dollars in economic and non-economic damages for past and future economic and no0n-economic damages. The jury award only a total of $28,000, broken down as $12,500 for past economic damages, $6,000 for past pain and suffering, future economic damages of $10,000, and $0 for future pain and suffering. Plaintiff argues that the award of no future non-economic damages was inadequate and inconsistent with the finding of future economic damages. [Motion at 3-4.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BRIANNA CARBAJAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant contends general damages are “not at issue.” Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that (a) she has a pain and suffering claim, and (b) her loss of income claim is for $8000, not $2500; she contends the foregoing could render the value of this case in excess of $25,000.

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2017

ALEXANDRA KAO VS BLUE PLATE OYSTERETTE RESTAURANT

While there is no standard for determining general damages, “reasonableness” is the only limit on the amount of pain and suffering damages. (Civil Code §3359; Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764-68.) Plaintiff’s representations support a reasonable finding of pain and suffering as a result of the injury. In reply, Defendant argues that the non-economic damages must be proportional to the economic damages sustained.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARK POYADUE VS. RICHARD REYNOLDS

These two cases stand for the proposition that an award of damages that does not include recovery for pain and suffering is not necessarily inadequate as a matter of law, but rather "depends upon the facts involved." (Miller, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 558.) As the court stated in Miller, in failing to award damages for pain and suffering, the jury "'may well have believed that plaintiffs' injuries . . .

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ROUSCH VS. ALATORRE

Given plaintiff’s assertion of $500,000 in pain and suffering and $250,000 of emotional distress damages, a verdict within the unlimited court’s jurisdiction is possible. No definite standard or formula is prescribed by law to fix reasonable pain and suffering compensation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2017

CYNTHIA RIVERA VS BALUBHAI PATEL ET AL

Plaintiff seeks $125,000 in damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering. However, Plaintiff’s declaration submitted with the present motion contains only objective descriptions of the premises and the many defects that Defendant failed to repair. However, it provides no evidentiary basis for a finding as to Rivera’s subjective emotional distress or pain and suffering. Plaintiff may submit a declaration corroborating her claim for damages.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

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.