Court Opinion

ID: 9729673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:46:15.934053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.457230
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority in both its result and its principal conclusion that personal injury case jury instructions can authorize consideration of “the nature and extent of the plaintiffs injury, and the effect of the injury itself on the plaintiffs ability to function as a whole person.” However, I disagree with the majority’s view that the trial court erred when it instructed the jurors that they could consider “loss of enjoyment of life” in their determination of damages.
In view of the substantial and recent discussions of this aspect of damage recovery in other jurisdictions, and the majority position favoring its recognition, I cannot fault the trial court for declining to follow a century-old Indiana decision based on the difficulty in measurement and assignment of damages. The ascertainment of damages for “loss of enjoyment of life” is no more difficult than that for “pain and suffering,” a clearly recognized and accepted component of damages. Furthermore, the instruction on damages expressly advised the jury that its verdict had to be based on the evidence and not on guess or speculation.
No detrimental significance should be attached to the separate enumeration of “[t]he effect of his injury upon the quality and enjoyment of his life” as one of six items available for jury consideration in the determination of damages. It is mere conjecture that the jury improperly assigned a separate amount of damages to such consideration. The first two of the other listed factors were “the nature and extent” of injuries and “whether the injuries were temporary or permanent.” These do not invite any separate allocation of specific damages. The individual considerations taken as a whole cannot reasonably be seen as a checklist requiring a separate assignment of damage amounts for each factor so as to create any serious risk of double recovery.
I would find no error in the giving of the instruction, but would agree with the majority’s formulation for preferred instruction on this issue in the future. In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.