|
3.4-1 Damages - General
Revised to March 23, 2012
(modified April 5, 2012)
The rule of damages is as
follows. Insofar as money
can do it, the plaintiff is
to receive fair, just and
reasonable compensation for
all injuries and losses,
past and future, which are
proximately caused by the
defendant's proven
negligence.
Under this rule, the
purpose of an award of
damages is not to punish or
penalize the defendant for
(his/her) negligence, but to
compensate the plaintiff for
(his/her) resulting injuries
and losses.
You must attempt to
put the plaintiff in the
same position, as far as
money can do it, that
(he/she) would have been in
had the defendant not been
negligent.
Our laws impose certain
rules to govern the award of
damages in any case where
liability is proven.
Just as the plaintiff
has the burden of proving
liability by a fair
preponderance of the
evidence, (he/she) has the
burden of proving (his/her)
entitlement to recover
damages by a fair
preponderance of the
evidence.
To that end, the
plaintiff must prove both
the nature and extent of
each particular loss or
injury for which (he/she)
seeks to recover damages and
that the loss or injury in
question was proximately
caused by the defendant's
negligence.
You may not guess or
speculate as to the nature
or extent of the plaintiff’s
losses or injuries.
Your decision must be
based on reasonable
probabilities in light of
the evidence presented at
trial.
Injuries and losses
for which the plaintiff
should be compensated
include those (he/she) has
suffered up to and including
the present time and those
(he/she) is reasonably
likely to suffer in the
future as a proximate result
of the defendant's
negligence.
Negligence, as I
previously instructed you,
is a proximate cause of a
loss or injury if it is a
substantial factor in
bringing that loss or injury
about.
Once the plaintiff has
proved the nature and extent
of (his/her) compensable
injuries and losses, it
becomes your job to
determine what is fair, just
and reasonable compensation
for those injuries and
losses.
There is often no
mathematical formula in
making this determination.
Instead, you must use human
experience and apply sound
common sense in determining
the amount of your verdict.
In a personal injury action,
there are two general types
of damages with which you
must be concerned: economic
and noneconomic damages.
Economic damages are
monies awarded as
compensation for monetary
losses and expenses which
the plaintiff has incurred,
or is reasonably likely to
incur in the future, as a
result of the defendant's
negligence.
They are awarded for
such things as the cost of
reasonable and necessary
medical care and lost
earnings.
Noneconomic damages
are monies awarded as
compensation for
non-monetary losses and
injuries which the plaintiff
has suffered, or is
reasonably likely to suffer
in the future, as a result
of the defendant's
negligence.
They are awarded for
such things as physical pain
and suffering, mental and
emotional pain and
suffering, and loss or
diminution of the ability to
enjoy life's pleasures.
I will now instruct you more
particularly on economic
damages.
In this case, the
plaintiff seeks to recover
economic damages for each of
the following types of
monetary losses or expenses:
<Here list each
type of monetary loss or
expense for which the
plaintiff seeks, and the
evidence potentially
supports, an award of
economic damages.
Then, proceed to
instruct on each such claim
under the appropriate
paragraph(s) below.>
The plaintiff is entitled to
recover the reasonable value
of medical care and expenses
incurred for the treatment
of injuries sustained as a
result of the defendant's
negligence.
The plaintiff must
prove that the expenses
(he/she) claims were
reasonably necessary and
proximately caused by the
defendant's negligence.
The plaintiff is also
entitled to recover any loss
of earnings or earning
capacity that (he/she)
proves to have been
proximately caused by the
defendant's negligence.
With respect to lost
earnings up to the present
time, the plaintiff must
prove that the defendant's
negligence has prevented
(him/her) from receiving the
earnings for which (he/she)
seeks compensation.
(He/She) must do so
by establishing a reasonable
probability that (his/her)
injury brought about a loss
of earnings.
The evidence must
establish a basis for a
reasonable estimate of that
loss.
The plaintiff is also
entitled to damages for the
loss of future earnings
based upon the evidence as
to what (he/she) probably
could have earned but for
the harm caused by the
defendant's negligence and
as to what the plaintiff can
now earn through the earning
period of (his/her) life.
Let me now turn to
noneconomic damages.
In this case, the
plaintiff seeks to recover
noneconomic damages for each
of the following types of
non-monetary losses or
injuries: <Here
list each type of
non-monetary loss or injury
for which the plaintiff
seeks, and the evidence
potentially supports, an
award of noneconomic
damages.
Then, proceed to
instruct on each such claim
under the appropriate
paragraph(s) below.>
A plaintiff who is injured
by the negligence of another
is entitled to be
compensated for all physical
pain and suffering, mental
and emotional suffering,
loss of the ability to enjoy
life's pleasures, and
permanent impairment or loss
of function that (he/she)
proves by a fair
preponderance of the
evidence to have been
proximately caused by the
defendant's negligence.
As far as money can
compensate the plaintiff for
such injuries and their
consequences, you must award
a fair, just, and reasonable
sum.
You simply have to
use your own good judgment
in awarding damages in this
category.
You should consider
the nature and duration of
any pain and suffering that
you find.
A plaintiff who is injured
by the negligence of another
is entitled to be
compensated for mental
suffering caused by the
defendant's negligence for
the results which
proximately flow from it in
the same manner as (he/she)
is for physical suffering.
You should consider, as a
separate category for
awarding damages in this
case, the length of time the
plaintiff was, or will
probably be, disabled from
engaging in activities which
(he/she) enjoys.
If you find that it is
reasonably probable that
(he/she) has suffered
permanent physical harm,
loss of function or
disfigurement, the plaintiff
is entitled to be
compensated for that
category of injury.
Your award should be
in accordance with the
nature and extent of such
physical impairment, loss of
function or disfigurement
and the length of time
(he/she) is reasonably
expected to endure its
negative consequences.
<Here it may be
appropriate to instruct the
jury as to the use of any
evidence of life expectancy
that has been introduced.>
The plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for all
injuries and losses proximately caused by the defendant's
negligence even though those injuries and losses are more
serious than they otherwise would have been because of a
pre-existing condition.
You may not compensate the plaintiff for the
pre-existing injury itself.
However, the aggravation of such an injury,
proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, is a
proper item of noneconomic damages.
The plaintiff alleges that, before the accident occurred,
(he/she) had a preexisting medical condition but that condition
was not causing the plaintiff to suffer any symptoms.
If you find that the plaintiff had a preexisting
condition from which (he/she) was suffering no symptoms and that
the condition was aggravated by an injury caused by the
defendant's negligence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover
full compensation for those symptoms, even though the symptoms
are greater than if the plaintiff had not suffered from this
preexisting condition.
Authority
Tuite v. Stop & Shop Cos.,
45 Conn. App. 305, 310-11 n.2 (1997).
Notes
Only the portions of the charge pertinent to damages sought by
the plaintiff and supported by the evidence should be given.
In cases involving numerous categories of claimed
economic damages, it is a good practice to provide the jury with
an overview of the particular types of damages that (if
appropriate) are not being sought.
If relevant, a life expectancy charge should be given at this
time if it wasn't given at the time that the evidence was
introduced.
Cases involving claims of fear of the possibility of future
medical treatment and disability will require specialized
instruction. See
Goodmaster v. Houser, 225 Conn. 637, 645-47 (1993);
Petriello v. Kalman, 215 Conn. 377, 395-98 (1990).
|