Beagle v. Vasold

417 P.2d 673 · California Supreme Court · 1966

Facts

Plaintiff suffered personal injuries in an automobile accident and appealed a jury verdict for inadequate damages. The trial court prohibited plaintiff's counsel from arguing specific amounts for general damages, either as a total sum or on a per diem basis, to the jury. Plaintiff's injuries included head/hand cuts, vision impairment, and exacerbated spondylolisthesis, preventing him from working as a carpenter.

Issue

Did the trial court err by prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from arguing to the jury specific amounts for general damages, including a total sum or a per diem calculation for pain and suffering?

Holding

Yes, the trial court erred in restricting counsel's arguments regarding general damages. The judgment was reversed because it was reasonably probable that a more favorable result for the plaintiff would have been reached without the restriction.

Rule

Counsel may argue to the jury the total amount of general damages claimed and suggest a "per diem" calculation for pain and suffering, as these are legitimate inferences from the evidence, not evidence themselves. The trial court retains the power to ensure arguments are within legitimate bounds and to instruct the jury that arguments are not evidence.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-08. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.