Beagle v. Vasold

Citation. 417 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1966)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation417 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1966)

Brief Fact Summary.

When Beagle sued Vasold’s estate for injuries incurred during a motor vehicle accident, the trial court prevented Beagle’s counsel from submitting the damages sought in the form of a lump sum or per diem sum.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A plaintiff may present to the jury the amount of damages sought in the form of a lump sum or per-diem sum.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

One of the most difficult tasks imposed upon a jury in deciding a case involving personal injuries is to determine the amount of money the plaintiff is to be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering.

View Full Point of Law

Beagle and other passengers were injured when riding in a vehicle driven by Vasold. Vasold was killed when the car went over an embankment. Beagle filed suit and the trial court prevented Beagle’s attorney from presenting the amount of damages sought in a lump sum or per diem sum. The jury held for Beagle.

Issue.

Whether a plaintiff may present to the jury the amount of damages sought in the form of a lump sum or per-diem sum?

Held.

Yes. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The trial court erred in preventing Beagle’s counsel from presenting damages sought to the jury in the form of a per diem sum.

Discussion.

A plaintiff may present to the jury the amount of damages sought in the form of a lump sum or per-diem sum. Jurisdictions that permit a per diem sum, an attorney is allowed to present information regarding damages to the jury for pain and suffering in a specific amount of dollars for a specific period of time.