Botta v. Brunner
138 A.2d 713 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
Facts
Nancy Botta, a passenger, was injured in a car collision involving drivers Brunner and Erieband. A jury found Brunner solely liable but awarded Botta inadequate damages. The Appellate Division ordered a new trial on damages against Brunner due to an erroneous jury instruction on the burden of proof for injuries, and the Supreme Court granted certification to review the entire matter, focusing on the mathematical formula issue.
Issue
1. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the plaintiff must prove injuries by "clear and convincing evidence" instead of a "preponderance of the evidence"? 2. Is it permissible for plaintiff's counsel to suggest monetary mathematical formulas (e.g., per diem) to a jury for computing compensation for pain and suffering during summation?
Holding
1. Yes, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for injuries, affirming the need for a new trial on damages against Brunner. 2. No, it is improper for counsel to suggest mathematical formulas for pain and suffering damages to the jury, as such damages are not susceptible to mathematical calculation.
Rule
1. In negligence cases, a plaintiff must prove injuries by a "preponderance of the evidence." 2. Damages for pain and suffering are not subject to mathematical formulas or per diem calculations, and counsel may not suggest such methods to the jury. The assessment of reasonable compensation for personal injuries is solely within the jury's judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.