Opinion ID: 1964909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Life and Work Life Expectancy Tables

Text: During trial, the plaintiff's physician, Dr. Peter Trafton (Dr. Trafton), testified that as a result of his injuries, the plaintiff would be unable to return to his former employment in residential construction. Asked whether the plaintiff could engage in any other type of employment in the future, the defendant objected, asserting that Dr. Trafton was not qualified as a vocational rehabilitation expert to give an opinion on the universe of jobs and employment opportunities which are available in the economy. The objection was sustained. Doctor Trafton later did testify that the plaintiff could engage in activities such as walking around on level ground, limited driving and light activities involving the use of his arms, but that he would not be able to work at a prolonged sitting job. Subsequently, the plaintiff introduced the plaintiff's life and work life expectancy tables. The defendant objected to the work life expectancy tables, contending that the plaintiff had not presented an expert to testify about his residual work life capacity. Both tables were admitted. Life [and work life expectancy] tables    are for the assistance of the jury and are not controlling. Turner v. Maxon, 53 R.I. 164, 166, 165 A. 372, 373 (1933). To be admissible they must be applicable to the facts of the case in which they are introduced. Id. Section 9-19-38(a) provides in pertinent part: In any proceeding commenced in any court    when it is necessary to establish the expectancy of continued life or work life expectancy of any person    `The Vital Statistics of the United States (Life Tables)' or `Tables of Working Life of the United States'    shall be admissible in evidence as competent evidence of such matter. The admissibility of evidence provided for in this section shall not be deemed to render inadmissible evidence as to the health, constitution, habits, or occupation of the person or any other evidence otherwise admissible under the laws of this state. Section 9-19-38(a) clearly permits a party to introduce life and work life expectancy tables when the life or work life expectancy of a person is at issue in a particular case. Their relative value later may be challenged in cross-examination by the opposing party, as well as through the introduction of other competent evidence. In this case, evidence was presented by the plaintiff demonstrating that, as a result of his injuries, he was incapacitated and was unable ever to return to his former employment. Consequently, the life and work life expectancy tables were properly admitted. We conclude that the trial justice did not err in admitting the life and work life expectancy tables to assist the trial jury in calculating the plaintiff's future work life expectancy damages.