Court Opinion

ID: 9729674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:46:15.952919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.470197
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority opinion’s finding that “quality or enjoyment of life” should not be a separate element of damage which the jury could consider in arriving at their verdict.
However, I disagree with the majority in their ultimate conclusion that the erroneous instruction advising the jury that quality and enjoyment of life could be considered as a separate element of damages was harmless error.
As pointed out by the majority opinion, the use of such language in an instruction well could lead to double recovery of damages. For that reason, I cannot say that this Court is in a position to divine whether it contributed to the amount of the jury’s verdict. The presence of the erroneous instruction so taints the verdict that it should not be permitted to stand.
I therefore would reverse this case and order a new trial.
PIVARNIK, J„ concurs.