Hedonics Update: Utah
Inspired by an attorney's inquiry who was interested in the standing of hedonic damages in his state, here is a closer look at hedonics in Utah.
Utah does allow hedonic damages as a part of pain and suffering. The pain and suffering for which damages are recoverable in a personal injury action in Utah include not only physical pain but also mental pain or anguish, that is, the mental reaction to that pain and to the possible consequences of the physical injury. Included in mental pain and suffering is the diminished enjoyment of life, as well as the humiliation and embarrassment resulting from permanent scars and disability.
An article by Mark Glick called "The Law and Economics of Tort Damages" states the following regarding a case in Utah and its implications:
Judd v. Rowley's Cherry Hill Orchards, Inc., 611 P.2d 1216, 1221 (Utah 1980) ("[i]ncluded in mental pain and suffering is the diminished enjoyment of life"). The problem with pain and suffering is that both concepts are closely tied to the injury itself. The level of physical pain that the victim can be expected to experience is closely linked to the nature of the injury. In the eyes of the juror, the answer to the question "how much does it hurt" will likely come from consideration of the injury itself. The concept of suffering is closely connected to the concept of pain, but may include mental suffering as well. Again, as a practical matter, jury assessments of the intensity and duration of suffering closely associate it with the corporeal injury. Moreover, the categories of proof for enjoyment of life and pain and suffering are distinct. For example, compare the case of two artists of equal talent, each of whom loses an arm as a result of negligence. The first artist has an arm surgically severed by mistake at the hospital, while the second has an arm mangled in an auto accident. The loss of enjoyment of life would focus on the activities of life before the injuries, while the pain and suffering analysis focuses on the physical and mental response to the injury itself. When these separate categories are combined inevitably, the second artist is likely to receive the larger award for pain and suffering regardless of the pre-injury evidence.
Utah does allow hedonic damages as a part of pain and suffering. The pain and suffering for which damages are recoverable in a personal injury action in Utah include not only physical pain but also mental pain or anguish, that is, the mental reaction to that pain and to the possible consequences of the physical injury. Included in mental pain and suffering is the diminished enjoyment of life, as well as the humiliation and embarrassment resulting from permanent scars and disability.
An article by Mark Glick called "The Law and Economics of Tort Damages" states the following regarding a case in Utah and its implications:
Judd v. Rowley's Cherry Hill Orchards, Inc., 611 P.2d 1216, 1221 (Utah 1980) ("[i]ncluded in mental pain and suffering is the diminished enjoyment of life"). The problem with pain and suffering is that both concepts are closely tied to the injury itself. The level of physical pain that the victim can be expected to experience is closely linked to the nature of the injury. In the eyes of the juror, the answer to the question "how much does it hurt" will likely come from consideration of the injury itself. The concept of suffering is closely connected to the concept of pain, but may include mental suffering as well. Again, as a practical matter, jury assessments of the intensity and duration of suffering closely associate it with the corporeal injury. Moreover, the categories of proof for enjoyment of life and pain and suffering are distinct. For example, compare the case of two artists of equal talent, each of whom loses an arm as a result of negligence. The first artist has an arm surgically severed by mistake at the hospital, while the second has an arm mangled in an auto accident. The loss of enjoyment of life would focus on the activities of life before the injuries, while the pain and suffering analysis focuses on the physical and mental response to the injury itself. When these separate categories are combined inevitably, the second artist is likely to receive the larger award for pain and suffering regardless of the pre-injury evidence.
Labels: courts
posted by The Experts @ 11:39 AM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home