 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Weckman v. Weckman6/20/2000
expenses are likely to occur. The plaintiff must also present some evidence of what the expenses will be. Sturlaugson v. Renville Farmers Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 334, 337, 204 N.W.2d 430, 432 (1973).
From the evidence presented here, the jury could reasonably conclude that J.J.W. will have future medical expenses in the amount awarded. While there was no testimony precisely calculating J.J.W.'s future medical expenses, it was possible for the jury to consider his life expectancy and the cost of his treatment to date to arrive at an award of future medical expenses. See Kwapien, 400 N.W.2d at 184 (upholding jury award of future medical expenses where evidence supporting award included plaintiff's life expectancy, testimony that plaintiff would require life-long physical therapy, and cost of past physical-therapy treatments). Because there is a reasonable basis for the jury's conclusion that J.J.W.'s future medical expenses will be $30,000, the verdict was not based on mere speculation. The district court's refusal to grant a new trial or remittitur on the issue of future medical expenses was not an abuse of discretion.
Appellant further argues that the evidence does not support the jury's award of $500,000 for future general damages and that the district court erred in failing to reduce this award by $250,000. Appellant claims that a reduction in damages is justified because J.J.W. is doing quite well considering the severity of his injury ; the record shows that J.J.W. is able to engage in normal activities, such as riding a bicycle and a motor scooter; and J.J.W.'s pre-school and kindergarten teachers have voiced no concerns about his behavior or cognitive abilities.
But the record also shows that J.J.W. has sustained permanent injuries, is scarred for life, and is likely to have future medical and neuropsychological problems. In addition to the evidence discussed above, the record shows that (1) J.J.W. has lost brain tissue, which does not regenerate; (2) J.J.W. has a scar approximately one-half inch in width that runs the length of one side of his head; (3) J.J.W. has problems with language development, verbal comprehension, and visual-motor/perceptual-motor integration; (4) J.J.W. will probably have ongoing problems with language acquisition, reading, writing, perceptual motor skills, and arithmetic; these problems will increase as his curricula become more challenging; and (5) J.J.W.'s injury will likely affect his employability and earning prospects. Impairment of future earning capacity is an item of general damages. Wilson v. Sorge, 256 Minn. 125, 132, 97 N.W.2d 477, 483 (1959).
In arriving at a monetary value for a loss or diminution of future earning capacity the jury should weigh factors including, but not limited to, the plaintiff's age, life expectancy, health, habits, talents, and skill. Id. J.J.W. was six at the time of trial, and evidence was introduced that his life expectancy is 67.1 years. Given that the jury had to assess damages over a 61-year span and had to consider that J.J.W. is reasonably expected to have difficulty with his education and employment, the verdict is not contrary to the evidence as whole and does not appear to have been rendered because of passion or prejudice. The district court's refusal to grant a new trial or remittitur on the issue of future general damages was not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
|