Court Opinion

ID: 9611947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:40.244753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:18.243468
License: Public Domain

Petrie, C.J.
(concurring)—I agree completely with everything said by the majority; but feel compelled to comment upon the use of mathematical tables in the expectation of introducing a measure of objectivity into the trial of a lawsuit. Great care must be taken lest a misuse, rather than an appropriate use, of such tables causes a totally unwarranted result.
In the case at bar, defendant has asked the court to admit as an exhibit—available to the jury—a table designated “Present Value of $1” assuming selected anticipated percentages of interest earnings ranging from 4 per cent to 8 per cent, for periods of time ranging from 1 to 50 years. The more complete title of the specific table offered is “Present Value of $1 To Be Received At End Of Specified Time.” (Italics mine.) See Am. Jur. 2d Desk Book, Doc. No. 132 (1962). Such a table is totally unsuitable to determine *86damages for loss of future earnings, because the table assumes that the present award is for a loss which would not have occurred until the end of the time period used in the calculation. The appropriate table would have been “Present Value Of An Annuity of $1 Payable At End Of Specified Time Intervals [weekly, monthly or annually] For A Specified Number Of Years.” (Italics mine.)
A hypothetical example will illustrate the error. Assume the jury determined that a plaintiff sustained a loss of earning power of $500 per month over a work expectancy of 12 years; and that any present award to replace that loss could reasonably be invested at 6 per cent per annum. Defendant’s proposed table contemplates that the jury would convert $72,000 ($500 x 12 x 12) to its present value by applying a factor of 0.49697. The award, thus calculated, would be slightly less than $36,000. On the other hand, even if the annuity were paid annually at $6,000 per year, the present value of such an annuity, payable for each of the next 12 years with the remaining principal invested at 6 per cent per annum, would be slightly more than $53,000. See Am. Jur. 2d Desk Book, Doc. No. 133 (1962) 'and Doc. No. 176.5 (Supp. 1970). The disparity caused by use of the ■wrong table is substantial. The reason for expert guidance in the selectivity of the appropriate table and its proper use is evident.