 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kay v. Menard6/27/2000
r in permitting the jury to consider an award for the projected cost of the plaintiff's future medical expenses in calculating his damages, and we are unable to determine from the general verdict whether in fact any such award, or the amount thereof, was ever made by the jury.
8. Compensable Scarring.
At trial, the plaintiff testified that he had very visible scarring on his leg that caused him great embarrassment. This was the only evidence of scarring that was presented to the jury. The defendant contends that because there was no independent proof of the alleged scarring and no indication that the scarring was permanent, the jury should have been permitted to award only nominal damages on this issue.
Scars always are a relevant item in a plaintiff's claim for damages in a personal injury case; particularly when, as here, those scars are claimed to cause the plaintiff great embarrassment. In Arlan v. Cervini, 478 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1984) we said:
"mental suffering, which may include nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, or indignity, arising from consciousness of a facial or bodily scar, is a compensable element of damages." Id. at 980 (overruling Halladay v. Ingram, 78 R.I. 464, 82 A.2d 875 (1951), where we held that shame or humiliation resulting from consciousness of scarring was not an element of damages).
In this case, defense counsel could have requested the plaintiff to display his leg to the jury in an attempt to dispute the existence of the scars. However, presumably as part of his trial strategy, defense counsel failed to do so. The defendant cannot now complain that the scars did not exist. With respect to his contention that a plaintiff must establish that his or her scars are "permanent" before being entitled to compensation, we believe that, based upon the surgeon's testimony about the surgery performed upon the plaintiff's leg and the plaintiff's description of those scars to the trial jury, the jury certainly could have concluded that the scars were permanent in nature, as well as embarrassing to the plaintiff. Thus, the scars properly were compensable as part of the plaintiff's overall injuries. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial justice did not err in permitting the jury to award damages to the plaintiff to compensate him for the scars about which he had testified.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's appeal is denied, and the judgment of the Superior Court is upheld. The papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court.
Appeal from County: SOURCE OF APPEAL: Superior Providence Dimitri, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|