 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keene v. Brigham and Women's Hospital9/19/2002
a showing that the plaintiff has actually experienced or will actually experience that item of damages in the future. Consistent with that approach is the judge's conclusion that to be entitled to this item of damage, the plaintiff must possess a cognitive awareness of his loss; otherwise, any such award is not compensatory but punitive in nature, requiring Legislative authority. Lowell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 313 Mass. 257, 269 (1943). Caperci v. Huntoon, 397 F.2d 799, 801 n.2 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 393 U.S. 940 (1968). See also G.áL. c.á229, á2. Further, to the extent that the categories of pain and suffering or permanent disability overlap with loss of enjoyment of life experiences, a duplicative damage award may result. Our firm adherence to avoiding duplicative damages favors the conclusion reached by the judge. See generally Harrison v. Textron, Inc., 367 Mass. 540, 556 (1975); Szalla v. Locke, 421 Mass. 448, 453 (1995); Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 20, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 (1997). In sum, the judge did not err in denying the plaintiff's request for damages for loss of enjoyment of life as a separate item of general damages.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|