Garfoot v. Avila
California Court of Appeal
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
- Ballard v. UribeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Krouse v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. HutchinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. HoneycuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- English v. Mei Fhu LinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Ruckman v. Ag-Wise EnterprisesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025