Court Opinion

ID: 9576079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:20:38.707698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:18.652521
License: Public Domain

*881Neely, Justice,

concurring:

I concur in the result in this case but I respectfully differ from the majority’s reasoning in regard to Syllabus Point 1, which reaffirms the traditional rule that a plaintiffs recovery for future medical expenses and pain and suffering must be based on a showing, to a reasonable certainty, that such future damages will occur. I would follow the rule that a plaintiff may recover damages for future injuries in proportion to the probability of such injuries occurring. Modern improvements in probability theory and statistics justify the adoption of this new rule and overcome, to my satisfaction, the timeworn fear that damage awards based on probability would be merely speculative. A detailed analysis of my proposed rule can be found in my concurring opinion in Jordan v. Bero, _W. Va. _, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974), beginning at 640.
In conclusion I note the enthusiastic endorsement my proposed rule received in a case comment, 4 Hofstra L. Rev. 101 (1975). The comment carefully analyzed the logic behind the rule; established the rule’s workability, in part by reference to a jury’s capacity to make percentage allocations in such related tort areas as comparative negligence, aggravations of existing physical impairments, and apportionment of damages among two or more tort-feasors; and examined the practical consequences for personal injury litigation of the rule’s adoption.
I am authorized to state that Justice Wilson joins in this concurring opinion.