Opinion ID: 2631869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Future damages instruction

Text: The district court instructed that the jury could award reasonable compensation for physical and mental pain, suffering, anguish and disability that Little was reasonably certain to experience in the future as a result of the accident. Krause and Home Depot assert that this instruction was improper because Little presented no expert testimony regarding future damages. This court has held that when an injury or disability is subjective and not demonstrable to others (such as headaches), expert medical testimony is necessary before a jury may award future damages. [26] We have also held that a shoulder injury causing a demonstrably limited range of arm motion is an objective injury which does not require expert testimony before a jury awards damages for future pain and suffering. [27] We now hold that a broken bone is closer to the latter situation than the former, and accordingly a plaintiff need not present expert testimony before the district court instructs on future damages. First, the nature of Little's injury is clear and readily observable. The jury did not require an expert's testimony to understand the magnitude of the injury. Further, the extent to which a broken bone causes pain and suffering is common knowledge. The jury could estimate the degree of future discomfort which Little would experience without necessarily receiving an expert's assistance. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on future damages.