Opinion ID: 1201424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Litigant Bears the Burden of Distinguishing Between Different Types of Damages on a Jury Verdict Form

Text: Even more important, this Court has consistently held that it is the defendant's job to request a jury verdict form which specifies the elements of damages. In Gerver v. Benavides, 207 W.Va. 228, 530 S.E.2d 701 (1999), this Court addressed the situation where a litigant has failed to distinguish between economic and non-economic damages. Specifically, the Court states that it has held on several occasions that when a litigant seeks to make procedural distinctions between `special' damages and `general' damages, that litigant bears the burden of insuring that the circuit court distinguishes between types of damages in the jury's verdict form. Id. at 235, 530 S.E.2d at 708. Much like this case, Gerver dealt with a medical malpractice suit where the damage form failed to distinguish economic and non-economic damages. The defendant argued that the damage award amount exceeded the statutory cap on non-economic damages. We noted: Both the jury instructions and the jury's verdict form merged special, economic-type damages, such as lost future wages and employment benefits and future medical expenses, with general, non-economic-type damages, such as past and future pain and suffering and loss of capacity to enjoy life. The defendant did not object to the circuit court's instructions or verdict form, and did not submit special interrogatories that would allow the jury to segregate economic from non-economic losses. As there is no means to determine whether the non-economic damages assessed by the jury exceeded the $1,000,000 statutory limit, this Court will not presume that error occurred. 207 W.Va. at 235, 530 S.E.2d at 708. In the present case, the Appellee did not object to the verdict form and it is impossible for this Court now to determine what part of the award is economic in nature and what part is non-economic.