Can economic damages from a commercial damage calculator be used in court?
According to Determining Economic Damages by Gerald Martin, probably not. See:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
47 F.3d 292; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2321; 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 351
December 16, 1994, Submitted : February 9, 1995, Filed
Appellee was a seaman who served as a Second Mate aboard the S/S Pomerol, an oil tanker owned and operated by the appellant. She filed the underlying action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §668, and general admiralty and maritime law to recover damages for injuries sustained in separate incidents aboard the ship. During the course of a six-day jury trial, appellee offered into evidence a “Future Damage Calculator” marketed and distributed by the “Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co.”
This exhibit is a slide rule-type device which has life expectancy and work life expectancy tables on [**2] one side, and a “present value” table on the other. See addendum. The exhibit was offered without being identified or sponsored by any witness.
The [**4] issues on appeal are whether it was error for the district court to admit the Future Damage Calculator into evidence, and if so, whether the error was prejudicial to the appellant requiring reversal. The abuse of discretion standard governs our review of a district court’s decision regarding the admissibility of evidence.
The record reveals no foundation being laid for the exhibit itself or its method of calculation. No evidence was presented as to what would constitute a “fair rate of interest.” In short the jury was given this tool to do with as they would. The appellant was not given an opportunity to challenge the author’s expertise or methods of calculation. The exhibit is all the more troubling because [*296] the name of the publisher, “Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co.,” suggests that the judiciary has vouched for it. The submission of this exhibit into evidence as something resembling expert testimony without foundation, qualification or instruction was an abuse of discretion.
For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the district court and remand this case for a new trial on the issue of damages.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
47 F.3d 292; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2321; 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 351
December 16, 1994, Submitted : February 9, 1995, Filed
Appellee was a seaman who served as a Second Mate aboard the S/S Pomerol, an oil tanker owned and operated by the appellant. She filed the underlying action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §668, and general admiralty and maritime law to recover damages for injuries sustained in separate incidents aboard the ship. During the course of a six-day jury trial, appellee offered into evidence a “Future Damage Calculator” marketed and distributed by the “Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co.”
This exhibit is a slide rule-type device which has life expectancy and work life expectancy tables on [**2] one side, and a “present value” table on the other. See addendum. The exhibit was offered without being identified or sponsored by any witness.
The [**4] issues on appeal are whether it was error for the district court to admit the Future Damage Calculator into evidence, and if so, whether the error was prejudicial to the appellant requiring reversal. The abuse of discretion standard governs our review of a district court’s decision regarding the admissibility of evidence.
The record reveals no foundation being laid for the exhibit itself or its method of calculation. No evidence was presented as to what would constitute a “fair rate of interest.” In short the jury was given this tool to do with as they would. The appellant was not given an opportunity to challenge the author’s expertise or methods of calculation. The exhibit is all the more troubling because [*296] the name of the publisher, “Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co.,” suggests that the judiciary has vouched for it. The submission of this exhibit into evidence as something resembling expert testimony without foundation, qualification or instruction was an abuse of discretion.
For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the district court and remand this case for a new trial on the issue of damages.
Labels: courts on experts, damages
posted by The Experts @ 12:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home