Future — continued from Page 36
reasonably tending in an appreciable degree to prove the fact of future detri- ment is admissible; its sufficiency is for the jury to decide. (Bauman v. San Francisco (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 163, superseded by statute on another ground
as stated in Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 150 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 341].) For example, a plaintiff’s testimony that at the time of trial she was still suffering from headaches, nervousness and pain was
evidence tending to prove future dam- ages. (Loper v. Morrison (1944) 23 Cal.2d 600, 611 [145 P.2d 1].) It is important that your client be
ready to articulate his or her emotions, discomforts, and fears as well as any devel- oped behavior in avoidance related to the accident. Spend some additional time on drawing these areas out with your client. Adequately preparing your client to testify regarding his or her emotional distress will not only establish a stronger claim for future damages but will likely enhance the entire case.
Future earnings There is no requirement that expert
testimony about future earning capacity be presented before the jury is entitled to determine compensation for loss of future earnings. Evidence as to the nature and extent of injuries is sufficient to enable the jury to determine the extent to which the plaintiff’s earning power has been impaired. (Gargir v. Akiva (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1280-1281 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 557].) “One’s earning capaci- ty is not a matter of actual earnings . . . In short, the test is not what the plaintiff would have earned, but what [s]he could have earned.” (Stein, Damages and Recovery-Personal Injury and Death Actions (1972) § 58, p. 94; accord, Connolly v. Pre-Mixed Concrete Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 483, 489 [319 P.2d 343] [“Loss of earning power is an element of general damages which can be inferred from the nature of the injury, without proof of actual earn- ings or income either before or after the injury, and damages in this respect are awarded for the loss of ability thereafter to earn money”].) Support for a broad approach to
future earnings was recently confirmed in Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 [120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605]. In Pannu, Justice Perluss noted the relevant evidence that support- ed the future earnings portion of a $21.6 million award: “ample evidence of Pannu’s entrepreneurial skills, his work ethic and his consistent success in grow- ing his businesses.” (Id., at p. 1322) The opinion went into factual details of the
38— The Advocate Magazine JULY 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104