Legal Opinion
Canfield v. Sandock
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided December 13, 1990No. 71S03-9012-CV-780PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
The trial court in this personal injury action instructed the jury to consider the effect of the injury on the “quality and enjoyment of life” as a separate element when awarding damages. The Court of Appeals declared that such an instruction is proper. We hold that such an instruction is erroneous, but conclude that damages to a victim’s ability to function are compensa-ble.
In October 1986, David J. Canfield, Jr. struck Melvin Sandock with his car as San-dock walked across a street at an intersection with a green light. Sandock sued Can-field on February 3, 1987,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jordan v. BeroWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1974
- Flannery v. United StatesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
- Conder v. Hull Lift Truck, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Columbus v. StrassnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Whitaker v. KruseIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Matheney v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
- Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson/Couvillon v. Nebraska Department of Social ServicesNebraska Supreme Court · 1995
- Vergara Ex Rel. Vergara v. DoanIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WrightIndiana Supreme Court · 2002
- Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. BlumenfeldIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.