Opinion ID: 2450300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: loss of ability to earn

Text: The injured party in this case was a twenty-six year old male with some college training. He expressed a desire to become a veterinarian. Professor Weber testified that the prosthesis used by the appellee limited his flexibility, dexterity, and sensation. It is not necessary to use an expert to reach these conclusions under the facts of this case. The appellee appeared before the jury in the obvious physical condition of having lost his left hand. He further informed the jury that his left hand had been dominant. The loss of future wages and the loss of ability to earn are two separate and distinct elements of damages. In the case of Cates v. Brown, 278 Ark. 242, 645 S.W.2d 658 (1983), we distinguished the two. As stated in Cates , capacity to earn is covered by AMI 2207 and is distinct and separate from the element of permanency or loss of future wages. For a more thorough discussion and comparison of these elements of damages see Cates . When a person has suffered the loss of a part of his body, such as a hand, it is not necessary to prove with specificity the details as would be required to support an instruction for the loss of future wages. Therefore, the instruction as to decreased earning capacity was proper under the circumstances of this case. Having carefully considered the record and each argument presented on appeal, we do not find reversible error. Therefore, the case must be affirmed. HICKMAN and NEWBERN, JJ., dissent.