Court Opinion

ID: 9796575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:00:19.834318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:37.860213
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority opinion on all issues except the future damages instruction. Neither Gutierrez v. Sutton Vending Service, Inc.1 nor Paul v. Imperial Palace, Inc.2 stand for the proposition that a plaintiff need not present expert testimony to prove future pain, suffering or disability damages when the underlying injury is objective in nature. Rather these cases hold that expert testimony is unnecessary where the cause of the future pain, suffering or disability is objectively demonstrable to the trier of fact.
Gutierrez involved a blow to a young man’s head. The young man claimed he could not longer play the trumpet because of headaches related to the initial injury. However, medical testimony indicated he had fully recovered from the injury more than a year before the trial. We noted that no objective or clinical signs supported the claim for a continuing injury and that the claimed disability or continuing problem, a headache, is subjective in nature. Because the future damage was not “readily observable by the jurors,” we concluded he was not entitled to present a case of future damages to the jury.3
Subsequent to Gutierrez, we decided Lerner Shops of Nevada, *940Inc. v. Marin, where we stated that, in cases involving subjective physical injury, “the claim must be substantially supported by expert testimony to the effect that future pain and suffering is a probable consequence rather than a mere possibility.”4
Lerner was cited with approval in Paul. Paul involved a plaintiff who had a torn rotator cuff. Her surgeon testified that she had a thirty percent disability in her shoulder and she demonstrated her loss of arm motion to the jury. We stated that:
Because of this supporting evidence and because Paul’s disability was not “subjective,” . . . Paul provided sufficient evidence of future pain, suffering, and disability to allow the jury to award such damages.5
Here, Little suffered a broken ankle. He was released to full activity by his doctor. The doctor did not testify that Little suffered from a permanent disability or that it was probable he would experience future pain or suffering. Little testified that his ankle was still stiff and painful, but pain and stiffness are not readily observable to a jury. It is certainly possible that a broken ankle will cause occasional pain and stiffness, but the probability of such symptoms can only be established through expert testimony.
Because Little presented insufficient evidence of future damages, the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. I would remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a remittitur reducing the verdict by the amount of the future damages or grant a new trial.

 80 Nev. 562, 397 P.2d 3 (1964).

 111 Nev. 1544, 908 P.2d 226 (1995).

Gutierrez, 80 Nev. at 565-66, 397 P2d at 5.

 83 Nev. 75, 79-80, 423 P.2d 398, 401 (1967).

 Paul, 111 Nev. at 1548, 908 P.2d at 229.