Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp.

Facts

P was on a business trip driving north on Interstate 5. P's small car was struck by a 24-wheel tractor-trailer rig owned by D. P's car, which was in the slow lane, and was passing on the truck's right. The truck made an unsafe lane change into P's lane, and its front end hit P's car's left rear. The spun in front of the truck and was pushed sideways across three lanes of traffic. P's car was struck by another vehicle before it stopped on the shoulder, facing the wrong way. P walked away from the accident, but her car was seriously damaged. She continued her trip in a rental car, but she had suffered a concussion, was disoriented and was unable to handle her business affairs. P was a design school graduate, owns a small but growing business that manufactures and markets lingerie throughout California and in Las Vegas. P went to her doctor complaining of headaches, low back pain, and a stiff neck. P saw five other doctors including a neurologist, a psychiatrist, and an orthopedic surgeon. She had disabling neck pain, headaches, severe low back pain, groin pain, and shooting pains down her legs. A soft tissue injury specialist gave her cortisone shots in the lower back and sacroiliac joint, but she felt no lasting relief. She had six chiropractic sessions that were of no help. P sued D and its employee driver for personal injuries, property damage, and lost earnings. Ds conceded liability at trial, and the only issue for the jury was damages. P asked the jury for $208,479 in special damages, comprised of medical damages, temporary lost earnings, and property damage and miscellaneous expenses. As for pain and suffering, P asked for an unspecified amount of damages, including compensation for loss of enjoyment of life. P was 27 when the accident occurred, was a star high school varsity athlete in volleyball, softball, and basketball. Before the accident, she worked 10 to 11-hour days (including a night shift as a cocktail waitress), played softball and volleyball 3 nights a week, and exercised at the gym every day. After the accident, she could not sit at a sewing machine for longer than an hour without pain, could not function as a cocktail waitress, could not play organized sports, and could no longer water or snow ski, jog, or golf. Her social life, which had previously revolved around her athletic activities, was severely impaired. Driving a car causes her jaw to hurt. P's expert testified he had computed the basic economic value of life (apart from one's earnings from employment). The expert calculated the value of an average person's remaining 44-year life expectancy at $2.3 million, which he described as a baseline figure. Smith adjusted the baseline figure to account for P's longer than average remaining life expectancy of 53 years. He multiplied the adjusted baseline figure by various percentages reflecting plaintiff's possible degrees of disability to calculate various possible hedonic damage awards. Ds raised numerous grounds below for excluding the expert testimony, but they were denied. They included: (1) there is no consensus among experts in the field that a scientific method for computing hedonic damages exists, (2) the method of computing hedonic damages is not a matter for which expert testimony is admissible under Evidence Code section 801, such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative and would inflame the jury, (4) the evidence is inadmissible under California law which prohibits a separate instruction on loss of enjoyment of life damages and precludes a double recovery for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and (5) the evidence is speculative and invades the province of the jury to compute the amount of general damages. The jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff for $890,000. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.