Opinion ID: 1865898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Jury Instruction on Value of Home Health Care.

Text: Defendants objected to the jury instruction on the reasonable value of necessary home health care services provided to Stormo because the jurors were directed to fix an amount based on what is customarily charged for similar work, according to your common knowledge, and because there was no testimony about household services provided to Stormo. Defendants base their argument on our general rule that a trial court is not required to instruct the jury on issues that do not find support in the record. See State v. Weisenstein, 367 N.W.2d 201, 206 (S.D.1985). Defendants' contention that there was no testimony to support this instruction is contrary to the record. Stormo's father, sister Tracy, and the county nurse all testified about the amount of time they spent with Stormo, the assistance and care they provided, and her inability to care for herself. This testimony was uncontradicted. There was competent testimony to support the giving of this instruction. When reviewing the substance of a jury instruction, we examine whether the instructions as a whole provide the jury with a full and correct statement of the applicable law. Frazier v. Norton, 334 N.W.2d 865, 870 (S.D.1983). Furthermore, defendants also shoulder the burden to prove not only error in the instruction, but prejudicial error to the effect that under the evidence, the jury might and probably would have returned a different verdict[.] Weisenstein, 367 N.W.2d at 206. Defendants' challenge to the home health care instruction is based on the fact that the jury was allowed to just speculate as to what the cost and number of hours per week might be. `The rule against indefinite or uncertain damages applies only to such damages as are not the definite or certain results of the wrong. Uncertainty as to the fact is fatal to recovery, but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery.' Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 114, 118 (S.D.1977) (citations omitted). See Tri-State Refining & Inv. Co. v. Apaloosa Co., 452 N.W.2d 104, 110 (S.D.1990). We cannot say the trial court erred in instructing the jury to use its common knowledge to determine the amount of damages for home health care. However, it would be a better practice to present some testimony on the reasonable value of the services actually provided. Trial courts would be well advised in cases such as this to submit special interrogatories to the jury regarding the amount awarded for each element of damages. Such a practice would eliminate confusion over what part of the award, if any, was for such services, and aid in meaningful appellate review. Defendants also take issue with the remarks of Stormo's counsel in her closing argument concerning the value of the services provided to Stormo by family and friends. Her comments were as follows: The household nursing and personal care And the Judge will instruct you that you can award some reasonable amount for the services that her family and friends provided heris a little bit more difficult to calculate, and I've just done an estimate, but you do your own. I'll offer this for your convenience. Although she presumably got assistance beyond this time, we know there was at least about eight weeks when she got a great deal of nursing home care, home assistance, and that it was seven days a week, and I don't know exactly how long Gina slept each day, but assuming that she slept 10 hours a day, having been injured, 14 hours of waking time she needed some help, and I don't know what you would find a reasonable wage for someone to take care ofa lay person to do nursing, but for my calculation, I used $4.50 an hour. And if you calculate this out, it comes to those services being worth about $3,500. Now, that'sThat factor of damages, household services, nursing attendants, is something for you to deal with in your knowledge, and your guess is as good as mine. I just want to give you an indication of how you might figure it. Defendants assert that these comments coupled with the jury instruction caused a different verdict than would otherwise have been arrived at by the jury. This allegation is conclusory at best as defendants have failed to provide any basis to establish that the verdict probably would have been different. Given the nature of the services provided and the absence of a well-established market to determine the cost of such services, we cannot say it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to instruct the jury to use their own knowledge to establish a value for the services, and to permit Stormo's attorney to illustrate how such damages might be calculated.