Opinion ID: 2636635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Court Denied Alexander Damages for Future Pain and Suffering

Text: Alexander argues that the trial court erred by denying him damages for future pain and suffering. The state asserts that the trial court did not deny him damages for future pain and suffering. The court instructed the jury that it could consider both past and future non-economic losses: You may award the plaintiff a fair amount to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering . . . from harm legally caused by defendant's negligence. Such an award should fairly compensate the plaintiff for the non-economic losses he has experienced from the date of the injury until the date of the trial and for non-economic losses that he is reasonably probable to experience in the future. Having submitted the claim to the jury, the trial court did not deny Alexander damages for future pain and suffering. If Alexander believed that the jury was not adequately informed of his request for damages for pain and suffering, he should have objected to the special verdict form for its lack of itemization. But he did not object, and there was nothing inherently wrong with permitting the jury to make a lump sum award. [21] We must assume either that the jury did award damages for future pain and suffering [22] or chose not to do so. [23] Either way, it appears the jury addressed this damages item, and Alexander's argument that the court erred is without merit. [24]