Margaret P. Stevens Future


economic damages – When do you


need an expert? Take the time to integrate


evidence of the client’s injuries with the testimony of your experts


We think nothing of lining up the


usual suspects to establish our client’s injuries and the appropriate standard of care. However, given the number of pub- lished and unpublished cases on appeal in the past year involving admissibility and necessity of an expert opinion for future economic damages, it is worth taking a little extra time to creatively integrate evidence of our client’s injuries with our expert’s opin- ions. A pocket brief ready to file and serve at trial with legal authority for your presen- tation of damages can only help establish your case, educate the jurist and if neces- sary, provide a clear record for appeal.


When do you need expert testimony? If the nature of the plaintiff’s injury


is within the common knowledge and experience of the average juror, there is no need for expert testimony, regardless of whether the injury is objective or sub- jective. (Bauman v. San Francisco (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 165 [108 P.2d 989].) For many years, California courts have allowed a plaintiff to testify as to the value of personal property (Holmes v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 43 [177 P.2d 32]) as well as the value of his or her own personal services (Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, Inc. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 593, 609 [54 Cal.Rptr. 130].) Expert testimony is limited to a subject


32— The Advocate Magazine JULY 2011


sufficiently beyond common experience that would help a layperson’s understand- ing. (Evid. Code, § 801(a).) As discussed below, a plaintiff alone may provide suffi- cient evidence to establish future econom- ic damages in certain cases, without the necessity of expert testimony.


Sufficiency of the evidence – Do you have enough with your expert opinion? The amount of damages is a question


of fact for the jury. (Miller v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 555, 558-559 [26 Cal.Rptr. 126].) But the amount must be supported by “substantial evidence” for the purpose of review. (20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 271 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 807].) We typically think that often involves the use of expert opinion. However, just because you have an expert’s opinion does not mean that this opinion always constitutes substantial evidence. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096, 1110 [63 P.3d 913] [an expert’s opinion which rests upon guess, surmise or conjecture, rather than rele- vant, probative facts, cannot constitute substantial evidence].) This is why it is crucial to know what a particular area of the law requires in terms of proving future economic damages.


Civil Code section 3283 states in part


that “[d]amages may be awarded ... for detriment ... certain to result in the future.” But “substantial evidence” does not mean absolute certainty. There is no requirement that a plaintiff prove with certainty the extent of the harm she has suffered as a result of the defendant’s conduct. (Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 219 [219 Cal.Rptr. 445].) Although “[i]t is desirable ... that there be definiteness of proof of the amount of damage as far as is reasonably possible [,] [i]t is even more desirable ... that an injured person not be deprived of substantial compensation merely because he cannot prove with complete certainty the extent of harm he has suffered.” (Ibid., citing Rest.2d Torts, § 912, com. a, at p. 479.) Courts have interpreted this to mean a plaintiff may recover if the detri- ment is “reasonably certain” to occur. (Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 100], citing Ostertag v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 795, 805-806, 807 [151 P.2d 647].) It is for the jury to determine the probabilities as to whether future detriment is reasonably certain to occur in any particular case. (Ibid.)


See Future, Page 34


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