Legal Opinion

Garfoot v. Avila

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 7, 1989No. F010185PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

Statement of Facts and Proceedings Below

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against defendants for personal injuries sustained from a vehicle/pedestrian accident. Defendants admitted liability, and a jury trial was held on the issue of damages. Damages were sought for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Plaintiff’s counsel made a “per diem” argument to the jury for pain and suffering damages pursuant to Beagle v. Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 180-182 [53 Cal.Rptr. 129, 417 P.2d 673]. This argument suggests that the jury award a sum for each…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ballard v. UribeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Krouse v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1982
  4. People v. HutchinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. People v. HoneycuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. English v. Mei Fhu LinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Ruckman v. Ag-Wise EnterprisesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API