Mercado v. Ahmed

974 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mercado’s (P) then six-year-old boy was struck by a taxi driven by Ahmed (D). Brian was taken to the hospital, examined for about three to four hours, by a team of doctors and other hospital personnel and then released that same day. Brian never lost consciousness, felt no pain, and was alert, stable and able to answer the emergency room doctors' questions. An examination of Brian's skull, eyes and ears revealed no signs of head injury. The boy's reflexes, blood pressure, heart rate, and pulse were all normal. P experienced severe problems after the accident but also had a wide range of problems before the accident. Brian suffered from a wide range of problems prior to the accident. His ability to process visual and auditory information is substantially impaired, making reading, writing, and arithmetic very difficult for him. He had been diagnosed as suffering from severe emotional problems and as suicidal. He is unable to perform such rudimentary tasks as dressing properly or managing his personal hygiene. Brian would need constant care for the rest of his life. P argued at trial that Brian's problems were caused by a closed head injury he suffered when he was struck by the taxi in the museum parking lot, an injury which she claims went undetected the day of the accident. The jury awarded P $50,000 for pain and suffering and $29,000 in medical expenses. P appealed because she was not allowed to testify as to the lost pleasures of life. P had an expert, Smith, who was examined voir dire. Smith was prepared to testify that P had suffered hedonic injuries of between $2.2 million and $2.7 million. The trial judge excluded the testimony because Smith's method offered for determination of hedonic damages had no consensus among experts and that his research was no more than a mere compilation of opinions and would not aid the jury.