Opinion ID: 1953872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Future Wages and Benefits

Text: The plaintiff's sole claim on his cross-appeal is that during his closing argument the defendants' attorney appealed to the personal biases of the jurors. According to the plaintiff, this resulted in the jury awarding no money for future lost wages and benefits, a result that was inconsistent with the remainder of the award. During his closing argument, the defendants' attorney stated: I can't tell you why Mr. Snelling told us repeatedly that his greatest concern was for the taxpayers of Claremont when in this case he's asking you to make a big money award that will be paid by Bob Porter and those same Claremont taxpayers. If Mr. Snelling gets the kind of award he's asking for, the taxpayers will pay twice for the work of city assessor over a 20 year period. The plaintiff then objected, but was overruled and the defendants' attorney continued: Once for Mr. Snelling and once for those people who actually do the job. The trial court gave no curative instruction, but during its general instruction to the jury stated that it was to decide the case without sympathy, prejudice, fear or favor, for or against any party. The plaintiff argues that the sole reason for the defendants' attorney's comments was to warn jurors that they, their friends and relatives, would have to pay for any judgment awarded, and that in particular, an award of front pay damages would burden them with paying for two salaries for the next twenty years. According to the plaintiff, these comments were irrelevant, asserted facts not in evidence, and prejudiced the jury. Therefore, the plaintiff contends, the jury's award of no money for lost future wages ought to be vacated. We agree. During closing argument, counsel may not appeal to passion, prejudice or sympathy in a way not supported by the evidence. Walton v. City of Manchester, 140 N.H. 403, 406, 666 A.2d 978 (1995) (quotation omitted). For example, the general rule is that the unnecessary mention of insurance is reversible error. Id. (quotation omitted). Here, the defendants' attorney's statements were unnecessary for the jurors to decide the issues before them and were designed to appeal to their bias or prejudice. Moreover, it is, at best, unclear what the effect upon the City's taxpayers of having to pay the plaintiff's future lost wages would be, or how that relates to the evidence presented at trial. Commenting on the potential financial impact to a defendant of having to pay an award is not unlike mentioning the availability of insurance coverage. We conclude, therefore, that the defendants' attorney's comments were improper and that the jury's award of no money for lost future wages must be vacated. For the above reasons, the jury's award relating to the plaintiff's future wages and benefits is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.