Future — continued from Page 34
An expert need only render an opin-
ion that based on professional experience and observations in treating cases where like injuries have occurred, and as a result of that experience, we might or might not
expect like results to follow in this case. (Cordiner v. Los Angeles Traction Co. (1907) 5 Cal.App. 400, 404 [91 P.436].) And the expert’s opinion can be inconsistent and still admissible: “The fact that inconsisten-
cies may occur in the testimony of a given witness does not require that such testi- mony be disregarded ... nor does it mean that such testimony is necessarily insuffi- cient to support the verdict. It is for the trier of fact to consider internal inconsis- tencies in testimony, to resolve them if this is possible, and to determine what weight should be given to such testimo- ny.” (Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 878 [151 Cal.Rptr 285].)
“[A] reasonably approximate estima-
tion is deemed to be sufficient, and the existence of a satisfactory method of achieving this estimation will preclude the defendant, whose wrongful act gave rise to the plaintiff’s injury, from complaining that the amount of future damages can- not be determined with mathematical precision.“ (Southern California Disinfecting Co. v. Lomkin (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 431, 450 [7 Cal.Rptr 43].) Similarly, the plain- tiff’s expert in Guerra v. Balestrieri (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 511 [274 P.2d 443] based his opinion on future damages on the fact plaintiff was still experiencing pain two years after the accident and his experi- ence that “[f]requently in this type of neck injury a patient will continue to have symptoms indefinitely” and “[i]t may last forever; ... it may get worse; he may improve somewhat.” (Id. at pp. 518-519.) The court held, “From such testimony the jury could reasonably conclude that plain- tiff was reasonably certain to experience some pain and disability for the rest of his life.” (Id. at p. 519.)
Emotional distress To recover for future emotional dis-
tress, a plaintiff must prove that his or her mental suffering is reasonably certain to occur in the future. (
Civ.Code, § 3283; Bihun v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at 995.) Expert testi- mony is unnecessary if the injury is such that the jury could conclude, based on all the evidence and relying upon its own experiences and common knowledge, that future emotional distress is reasonably cer- tain to occur. (Mendoza v. Rudolf, supra, 140 Cal.App.2d at 636.) Any evidence
See Future, Page 38 36— 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