Court Opinion

ID: 9744036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:52:28.389395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.321345
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result of the majority’s decision which prohibits the consideration of the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life as a separate element, but wish to explain the reasoning behind my dissent in Canfield v. Sandock (1989), Ind.App., 546 N.E.2d 1237, and my concurrence with the result reached here today, to prevent any misperceived contradiction between the two.
In Canfield, the majority opinion held that “it is proper for juries to consider the injury’s effect upon loss of enjoyment of life as a factor in calculating damages and not as an independent basis of recovery.” (Emphasis added.) (Canfield, supra, 546 N.E.2d at 1239.) The majority opinion held that the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life should not be a separate element because of the possibility of duplicitous recovery; rather, “the trial court should couple the injury’s effect upon enjoyment of life with the pain and suffering or permanency of injury elements.” (Canfield, supra, 546 N.E.2d at 1240.)
Judge Ratliff dissented, stating: “[t]he instruction complained of advised the jury they could consider the effect of his injury upon the quality and enjoyment of his life. No new principle was enunciated.” (Canfield, supra, Ratliff, J., dis. at 1241.) However, Judge Ratliff was in agreement with the majority insofar as he stated, “[a]dverse effect from injuries upon the enjoyment of life long has been recognized as a factor to consider in awarding damages in this state.” (Emphasis added.) (Canfield, supra, Ratliff, J. dis. at 1241.)
In Canfield, I agreed with Judge Ratliff, and hence, the majority, that it is proper for a jury to consider the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life as a factor in calculating damages. However, I dissented from the majority because I believe the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life should be coupled with the nature and extent or permanency of the injury, not pain and suffering. Both Dunn v. Cadiente (1987), Ind.App., 503 N.E.2d 915, rev’d on other grounds (1987), Ind., 516 N.E.2d 52, and Grubbs v. United States (N.D.Ind.1984), 581 F.Supp. 536, support this conclusion. In both cases, the courts approved the following instruction:
the nature, extent and permanency of the injury as it affects the quality and enjoyment of life
Dunn, supra, at 918, and Grubbs, supra, at 541.
Given that the nature and extent or permanency of the injury can only be measured in terms of the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life, to instruct the jury that the quality and enjoyment of life is an element separate from the nature and extent of the injury would allow for a double recovery. Thus, I believe the way to avoid a duplicitous recovery is to combine the nature and extent or permanency of the injury along with the quality and enjoyment of life as one element in the calculation of damages. Contrary to the majority’s opinion in Canfield, to instruct the jury to consider the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life with pain and suffering, while simultaneously instructing the jury to consider the nature and extent of the injury, (i.e., in effect, the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life), as another element, would still allow for a double recovery.
Consequently, the way to avoid duplicitous recovery is to instruct the jury to consider, as one element, “the nature and *1245extent [or permanency] of the injury, as it affects the quality and enjoyment of life.” This properly allows the jury to consider the loss of the quality and enjoyment of life as a factor, but avoids the duplictous recovery that could occur if it were considered as a separate element or even if it were coupled with the element of pain and suffering.