Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp.
70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571, 60 Cal. App. 2d 757, 60 Cal. App. 4th 757 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony that assigns a specific monetary value to 'hedonic damages' (loss of enjoyment of life) based on a quantitative formula is inadmissible in California personal injury cases. Such damages are an inseparable component of a general pain and suffering award, not a separately calculable item, and their determination is left to the jury's discretion without a fixed formula.
Facts:
- On June 29, 1994, a tractor-trailer owned by Truck-A-Way Corporation made an unsafe lane change and collided with a car driven by Shereen Loth.
- Loth's car was pushed across three lanes of traffic and struck by another vehicle, causing her to suffer a concussion, disabling neck pain, and severe, chronic low back pain.
- Loth, who was 27 at the time, was a very athletic individual who played organized sports three nights a week and exercised daily.
- As a result of her permanent injuries, Loth could no longer play sports, ski, jog, or golf, and experienced constant pain that severely impaired her work, social life, and personal relationships.
- Loth's medical experts testified that she had exhausted her treatment options, other than taking potentially dangerous pain medications.
Procedural Posture:
- Shereen Loth sued Truck-A-Way Corporation in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to a jury trial on the sole issue of damages.
- Over the defendants' objection, the trial court allowed Loth's expert economist to testify about a formula for calculating 'hedonic damages.'
- The jury returned a general verdict for Loth in the amount of $890,000.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California law permit an expert economist to testify about a specific monetary value for 'hedonic damages' (loss of enjoyment of life) based on a quantitative formula?
Opinions:
Majority - Ortega, Acting P. J.
No. California law does not permit an expert economist to testify about a specific monetary value for hedonic damages based on a quantitative formula. The court reasoned that 'loss of enjoyment of life' is not a separate category of damages but is a component of the general award for pain and suffering. Citing precedent like Beagle v. Vasold, the court affirmed that there is 'no definite standard or method of calculation' for pain and suffering, and its valuation must be left to the 'restraint and common sense of the jury.' Allowing an expert to provide a mathematical formula for hedonic damages would invade the province of the jury, create a substantial risk of double recovery (since loss of enjoyment is already part of pain and suffering), and rely on impersonal, speculative data (like what society spends on safety devices) that is irrelevant to the plaintiff's unique, individual suffering. Therefore, such expert testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law because it does not assist the jury on a subject 'sufficiently beyond common experience' as required by Evidence Code § 801.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear precedent in California against the admissibility of expert testimony that attempts to quantify hedonic damages. It reinforces the traditional view that non-economic damages are inherently subjective and cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula. The ruling protects the jury's role as the sole arbiter of such damages, preventing experts from introducing speculative, impersonal calculations that could mislead the jury or lead to runaway verdicts. This holding aligns California with the majority of jurisdictions that have rejected this type of expert testimony, solidifying the principle that the value of human experience is not a subject for economic modeling in the courtroom.
