McDougald v Garber

1989

Venue: Ct. App. NY
Facts: Complications durian a caesarean-- severe brain damage and permanent coma.
Posture: Verdict for plaintiff at trial: $9.6M damages includng $1M for pain and suffering and $3.5M for loss of pleasure and pursuits of life (the rest is pecuniary, including $1.5M for husband for loss of her services). Reduced on post-trial motion to $4.79M by striking $2.35M for future nursing care and merging the pain and suffering with loss of pleasures into a simple $2M. Affirmed on appeal. Appeal.
Issue: Two of them:
  1. Is some degree of congitive awareness a prerequisite for recovery for loss of enjoyment of life?
  2. Should the jury be instructed to consider and award damages for loss of enjoyment of life separately from damages for pain and suffering?
Holding: Yes. No. Remanded for a new trial on non-pecuniary damages.
Rule: Damage awards are about compensation, not punishment, so we need to focus on what harm is being cured by the award.
Reasoning: The trial court thought that loss of enjoyment was compensable even though one might not be aware of the loss. But awareness is the essence of the thing.

A negligence award is to compensate the victim, not punish the wrongdoer. We only do punitive damages for intentional, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise aggravated torts. Now, of course, money doesn't really compensate you for suffering, but it's what we've got.

So the real question is whether this award serves some compensatory purpose, and the truth is it doesn't: this award doesn't help the victim enjoy life at all.

True, it does seem perverse that you might pay less for a more severely injured victim, but if you focus on the goal of compensation, it's clear that this is the correct result.

Next, it's true that pain and suffering is a different concept from loss of enjoyment. And it's also true that giving the jury more categories in which to award damages will help increase the total amount awarded. But these are not things that can be calculated with any kind of precision, so repeating imprecise calculations multiple times just amplifies the distortion. On top of that, we see no salutatory purpose in making multiple awards of this sort.
Dicta: Titone (dissenting): Tort damages are about quantifying human tragedy. There's nothing in there about "meaning" or "utility." The majority has adopted an arbitrary rule that doesn't help. Also, by the way, allowing more categories of awards helps juries be more granular, not less.