Brien Roche Law-01

Future Damages Cases Summarized By Accident Attorney

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Future Damages and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on the topic of damages see the pages on Wikipedia. 

Future Damages-Cases

1994 CSX Transp. v. Casale, 247 Va. 180, 441 S.E.2d 212. 

Plaintiff presented evidence of loss of earnings, future wage increases, cost of living increases in the future and fringe benefits. Issue arose as to who has burden to reduce future damages to present value. Court held that under FELA defendant has burden. 

1990 Bailey v. Henderson, 240 Va. 1, 392 S.E.2d 681. 

Auto accident. Doctor testified to plaintiff’s permanent injury as imposing limitations on work activity. Plaintiff testified to inability to follow chosen occupation. Future loss of income instruction properly given. 

1990 Bulala v. Boyd, 239 Va. 218, 389 S.E.2d 670. 

Plaintiff presented economist’s testimony of future lost income of infant plaintiff with no work history. Too speculative, therefore stricken. 

1989 Clark v. Chapman, 238 Va. 655, 385 S.E.2d 885. 

Rehabilitation counsellor and economist allowed to testify as to future employability and future loss of income of plaintiff as result of personal injury. 

1988 Howell v. Cahoon, 236 Va. 3, 372 S.E.2d 363. 

Wrongful death case. Statements of 18-year-old decedent that he intended to become architect, send his younger brother to medical school and buy home for his mother are too speculative to be admissible. 

1984 Bell v. Kirby, 226 Va. 641, 311 S.E.2d 799. 

Instruction allowing for future pain and mental anguish was properly allowed where there is evidence of scarring and permanent sensory loss to knee. 

1982 Exxon Corp. v. Fulgham, 224 Va. 235, 294 S.E.2d 894. 

Evidence supported instruction on loss of earning capacity. It was not material that plaintiff, cabinetmaker when injured, was earning more as office-machine repairman at time of trial. Such instructions have been disapproved where injury, although permanent, was either minimal, cosmetically objectionable only, or would not be impediment in performance of work for which plaintiff is qualified. Hypothetical questions about prospective loss of wages is improper. 

1982 Todt v. Shaw, 223 Va. 123, 286 S.E.2d 211. 

Evidence supported giving instruction dealing with future inconvenience and discomfort where plaintiff was still suffering from injuries at time of trial. 

1980 Cassady v. Martin, 220 Va. 1093, 266 S.E.2d 104. 

Economist testimony not allowed in this wrongful death case as being too speculative. 

1979 State Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n v. Carter, 219 Va. 663, 250 S.E.2d 344. 

Property owners in eminent domain proceeding attempted to present evidence of effect on their property of two hypothesized changes of grade at some unknown future time; this was clearly too remote and speculative to be admissible. 

1972 Basham v. Pate, 212 Va. 772, 188 S.E.2d 198. 

Future damages.Plaintiff suffered permanent disability: five percent of hand. Improper to instruct jury on lessening of earning capacity when there was no evidence of such. 

1971 Minnix v. Hall, 211 Va. 512, 178 S.E.2d 519. 

Future damages.Evidence showed partial permanent disability and that plaintiff would undergo operation or be hospitalized, or incur future nursing expenses. Error to permit jury to assess damages for future hospitalization and nursing expense. 

1966 Hailes v. Gonzales, 207 Va. 612, 151 S.E.2d 388.

Future damages. Plaintiff injured in rear-ender. Not error to instruct jury that plaintiff’s future pain and suffering could be taken into account as element of damages where there was evidence to support it. Error committed in allowing jury to consider future medical expenses where there was no testimony to indicate that such expenses would be incurred and especially where evidence showed to contrary, as plaintiff had been taken off all medication. There was no evidence of permanency. 

1961 Davis v. Sykes, 202 Va. 952, 121 S.E.2d 513. 

Doctor’s testimony as to cost of future medical care which is based on what patients have told him was stricken. 

1954 Gwaltney v. Reid, 196 Va. 505, 84 S.E.2d 501. 

Future damages.Witnesses may not testify as to probable success of future surgery where there is no evidence that such has been recommended or is necessary.


Free Phone Consultation

Request a Free Phone Consultation by filling out the form below. We'll be in touch shortly about your case.

Latest Reveiw

“I have been a client of Brien Roche for over 25 years and continue to receive exception service. Over the years he has represented in numerous situations including very large commercial transactions, business issues and others. His advice is invaluable as he listens well and is very measured in his responses. He will give you options and the pros and cons of each for you to decide what is your best course of action. I strongly encourage anyone to meet with Brien before they decide who to hire to represent them.” - Clifton Killmon
Top Attorney VA