Beagle v. Vasold
417 P.2d 673 · California Supreme Court · 1966
Facts
Plaintiff sued for personal injuries from an automobile accident, and the jury awarded him $1,719.48, which he contended was inadequate. The trial court prohibited plaintiff's counsel from stating the amount of general damages claimed, either as a total sum or a per diem amount, during argument to the jury. Plaintiff's medical expenses were $1,377.48, and his total special damages claimed were $21,502.48, while general damages claimed were $61,025.18.
Issue
Did the trial court err in prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from stating the amount of general damages claimed, including per diem calculations for pain and suffering, during argument to the jury?
Holding
Yes, the trial court erred in restricting counsel's arguments regarding general damages, and this error was prejudicial. The judgment was reversed.
Rule
Counsel may argue to the jury the total amount of general damages claimed and may suggest a 'per diem' or segmented calculation for pain and suffering, as such arguments are reasonable inferences from the evidence and do not invade the jury's province. Trial courts should instruct the jury that counsel's arguments are not evidence and that the jury is not bound by any particular method of calculation, but they should not prohibit these types of damage arguments outright.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.