Court Opinion

ID: 9792095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:23:02.505083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.514308
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in affirming the judgment. But I am not entirely in accord with the treatment of the contention that the argument óf plaintiff’s counsel, suggesting that they consider pain and suffering at a certain money value was préjudicial error.
It is appreciated that there is a difference of view among respected authorities concerning this question. However, it appears to the writer that the majority and the later and better considered decisions favor permitting such an argument.1 Courts which have expressed themselves as opposing it are the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Nebraska),2 Minnesota,3 Delaware,4 and New Jersey.5 Of those, Minnesota seems to have changed its position in later cases by allowing the use of such an argument for what the court terms “purely illustrative” purposes.6
The case which may be regarded as the leading one against allowing such an argument is that of Botta v. Brunner 7 in which the New Jersey court discusses the problem and holds that such an argument to the jury constitutes an unwarranted intrusion by counsel into its domain. From our viewpoint it is significant that this case is decided under the New Jersey rule that neither court nor counsel are allowed to refer to the damages clause of the complaint, which as mentioned later, is different from our own practice.
Supporting generally the view that such an argument is permissible are the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ohio),8 Missis*27sippi,9 Texas,10 Florida,11 Nevada,12 and Washington.13
Chief Judge Carroll of the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida in the case of Ratner v. Arrington has written an ex-' ■cellent opinion approving such an argument. In it he reviews the cases arid the periodical literature on this subject and summarizes the arguments in favor of permitting counsel to argue such a formula in regard to the amount to be awarded for pain and suffering, and also sets forth the reasons supporting the propriety of allowing counsel to make such an argument, which in my opinion are more cogent and persuasive.14
Of particular interest to us is the recent case of Johnson v. Brown15 which sets forth the Nevada position approving the use of such an argument. It is proper to note that Nevada has a statute, Sec. 16.090, N.R.S., providing for the reading of the pleadings to the jury, which thus advises them the amount sued for. But the effect of doing so is not materially different from our own practice in regard to the point in question. We do not approve of reading the pleadings to the jury, preferring a summary statement of the issues. But, it is invariable practice in Utah courts, so far as the writer knows, to advise the jury the amount the plaintiffs sues for and to instruct them that if the verdict is for the plaintiff, the amount awarded should not exceed the amount prayed for in the complaint, and further, that it should not be taken as any indication as to the amount he may be entitled to recover.16
A recent case on the subject is that of Jones v. Hogan17 in which the Supreme Court of Washington analyzed the problem and held such an argument was not error. It took occasion to note that the trial court should have discretion to limit such an argument if it seemed to be intruding into the province of the jury, and stressed that there should be an admonitory instruction that the arguments of counsel are not to be considered as evidence, which is uniformly done in our practice.
In the very nature of a jury trial it is necessary for the court to tell the jury, as it invariably does, and as it did in this case, that it must try the case solely upon the *28evidence and that they, should not consider, nor be influenced by any statement of counsel as to what the evidence is, unless they stated correctly, nor by any statement of counsel of facts now shown in evidence, if any such have been made. * * * ” It is thus plainly apparent to the jury that such an argument is merely the suggestion of counsel and that it is not evidence. It is often said euphemistically that the purpose of counsel’s argument is to “assist” the jury in arriving at its verdict. More realistically it is to persuade the jury to his point of view in advocating the cause of his client.
The jury is entitled to base its determination as to any amount awarded for pain and suffering upon the evidence with respect thereto, judged against the background of their experience and practical knowledge in the everyday affairs of life. If the argument has any valid purpose, and we recognize that it has, it is to discuss the issues in the case with them in that light. One of these is the question of the amount of damages the plaintiff may be entitled to for pain and suffering. To say that he could not talk about nor suggest the amount would, for all practical purposes, prevent him from talking about that issue. If he can talk about it at all and mention some gross figure, which it has always been assumed he could do, it would seem no more harmful to invite the jury’s attention to a process of analysis and reasoning with respect thereto based upon the time involved" and reasonable compensation therefor. This seems more realistic than expecting' either counsel or the jury to reach into the-air and grab some arbitrary figure without making such analysis.
For the foregoing reasons it is my opinion that the trial court committed no error in permitting the argument made and I think that this Court should forthrightly meet the issue and so declare.
WADE, J., concurs in the concurring: opinion of CROCKETT, C. J.

. See Annotation and cases 60 A.L.R.2d 1347 et seq.

. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Candler, 283 F. 881, 28 A.L.R. 1174.

. Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 244 Minn. 1, 68 N.W.2d 873; Hallada v. Great Northern R. Co., 244 Minn. 81, 69 N.W.2d 673, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 874, 76 S.Ct. 119, 100 L.Ed. 773.

. Henne v. Balick, Del., 146 A.2d 394.

. Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82, 138 A.2d 713, 60 A.L.B.2d 1331.

. Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co., 248 Minn. 240, 80 N.W.2d 30.

. See footnote 5, supra.

. Imperial Oil, Ltd. v. Drlik, 234 F.2d 4, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 941, 77 S.Ct. 261, 1 L.Ed.2d 236.

. Four-County Electric Power Ass’n v. Clardy, 221 Miss. 403, 73 So.2d 144, 44 A.L.R.2d 1191; Arnold v. Ellis, 231 Miss. 757, 97 So.2d 744.

. J. E. Wright & Son Truck Line v. Chandler, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 786; Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Toombs, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 153.

. Ratner v. Arrington, Fla.App., 111 So. 2d 82.

. Johnson v. Brown, Nev., 345 P.2d 754.

. Jones v. Hogan, Wash., 351 P.2d 153.

. 111 So.2d 82, at pages 88 and 89.

. See footnote 12, supra.

. See No. 90.90 Jury Instruction Forms Utah.-

. See footnote 13, supra.