Opinion ID: 739296
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's closing argument

Text: 76 Plaintiff's counsel, in summation, asked for a specific dollar amount as damages. Defendants now urge us to adopt a per se rule prohibiting counsel from suggesting a specific sum as damages. We decline to do so. 77 While at least one circuit has such a rule, see Waldorf v. Shuta, 896 F.2d 723, 744 (3d Cir.1990) ([P]laintiff's counsel may [not] request a specific dollar amount for pain and suffering in his closing remarks.), we favor a more flexible approach. It is best left to the discretion of the trial judge, who may either prohibit counsel from mentioning specific figures or impose reasonable limitations, including cautionary jury instructions. See Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 1003, 1016 (2d Cir.1995) (encouraging trial judges to prohibit counsel from suggesting specific monetary awards for pain and suffering), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2576, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996); Mileski v. Long Island R.R. Co., 499 F.2d 1169, 1174 (2d Cir.1974). Here, counsel reviewed the evidence on damages and asked for an award of $1,500,000. The court instructed the jury that damages should be awarded only upon and only in proportion to a showing as to the nature, duration and severity of his condition. 78 Although the jury's award of $750,000, exactly half of the demand by plaintiff's counsel, suggests that the jurors may have been influenced by counsel's mention of a particular dollar amount, in context, the closing and the charge to the jury do not support defendants' claim that the jury was unfairly influenced. Cf. Consorti, 72 F.3d at 1016 (concluding that plaintiff's counsel's suggestion of a specific amount of damages did not unfairly influence jury that awarded precise amount suggested). 79