Legal Opinion

Weeks v. Holsclaw

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1982No. 58PA82PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EXUM, Justice.

The principal question raised by this case is whether a plaintiff seeking damages for pain may make what is commonly referred to as a “per diem” argument1 that the jury consider a formula by which a monetary value is assigned to a particular unit of time and this value is multiplied by the total number of such units during which the pain persisted. We hold that such an argument is permissible, but when it is used the trial judge should give appropriate cautionary jury instructions.

The parties stipulated that defendant Holsclaw was negligent in operating her automobile and caused…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Botta v. BrunnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
  3. Beagle v. VasoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Eastern Shore Public Service Co. v. CorbettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  5. Stassun v. ChapinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Braun v. AhmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  2. Finch v. Covil Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2019
  3. State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  4. Biggs v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. Giant Food Inc. v. SatterfieldCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API