 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks v. Sunrise Hospital12/17/2004
medical probability that the condition in question was caused by the industrial injury, or sufficient facts must be shown so that the trier of fact can make the reasonable conclusion that the condition was caused by the industrial injury." We determined that the speculative nature of the expert's opinion that the injury "'possibly could have been'" a precipitating factor was insufficient to support a finding of causation between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injuries.
During his deposition, Morris described his role in the case as follows: "I have to[,] using my experience and knowledge[,] come up with possible causes of things related to devices that might have contributed to the adverse event." (Emphasis added.) At trial, Morris testified as to the possible ways in which the interlock system on a Narkomed II could fail. At one point, Morris stated that " ny device can fail any time." He also testified that " veryone I have spoken to who had Narkomed 2's for any length of time experienced failures in the interlock system." Finally, Morris admitted that, under the circumstances, he could not determine whether the equipment contributed to James's injury since he was unable to examine the equipment because Sunrise had failed to properly identify which machines were used during James's surgery.
Morris's testimony and opinions established that it was possible for the Narkomed II's interlock device to malfunction intermittently. His testimony was also helpful to establish the standard of care for preserving the identity of the machines and providing grounds for the imposition of sanctions for failure to preserve evidence. It assisted the jury in understanding how the machines could have malfunctioned and why it was reasonable to draw an adverse inference from Sunrise's failure to identify the machines. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted Morris to give opinion testimony based on less than a reasonable degree of probability.
Hedonic Damages
Sunrise contends that the district court erred in permitting expert testimony concerning the monetary range of hedonic damages, i.e., loss of enjoyment of life damages.
We turn first to whether hedonic damages are a compensable element of damages. The term "hedonic" is derived from the Greek language and refers to the pleasures of life. Hedonic damages are therefore monetary remedies awarded to compensate injured persons for their non-economic loss of life's pleasures or the loss of enjoyment of life. The Supreme Court of South Carolina has succinctly explained hedonic loss, as distinguished from pain and suffering:
An award for pain and suffering compensates the injured person for the physical discomfort and the emotional response to the sensation of pain caused by the injury itself. Separate damages are given for mental anguish where the evidence shows, for example, that the injured person suffered shock, fright, emotional upset, and/or humiliation as the result of the defendant's negligence.
On the other hand, damages for "loss of enjoyment of life" compensate for the limitations, resulting from the defendant's negligence, on the injured person's ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or for the individual's inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies, or avocations.
Awarding damages for hedonic losses appears to be a recent concept. The long-standing objection to such an award was the "fear of speculativeness and duplication." While the majority of jurisdictions recognize hedonic loss as a recoverable element of damages, the jurisdic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|