A. GENERAL
I shall now instruct you on the law governing damages in the event you decide the liability issue in favor of [plaintiff].
The fact that I instruct you on damages should not be considered as suggesting any view of mine about which party is entitled to prevail in this case. Instructions on damages are given for your guidance in the event you find that the [plaintiff] is entitled to a verdict. I am required to provide instructions on damages in all cases where the trial includes a claim for damages.
NOTE:
See also charge 1.12(14) Damages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Sample Damage Verdict Sheet for a Personal Injury Case (2/98)
1. What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff [name] for damages he/she sustained as a proximate result of the accident/incident?
A. Pain, Suffering, Disability,
Impairment and Loss of
Enjoyment of Life?
$
B. Past Medical Expenses?
$
C. Future Medical Expenses?
$
D. Past Lost Wages?
$
E. Future Lost Wages?
$
2. What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff [name] for the lost of his/her spouse's services, society and consortium that he/she sustained as a proximate result of the accident/incident?
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases and Comment
This sample verdict sheet is intended to reflect the preference for itemized and segregated damages rather than a lump sum award on the verdict sheet. See, Black v. Seabrook Associates, Ltd., 298 NJ Super. 630, 638-39 (App. Div. 1997) ("Too many sins are buried in a lump sum award, especially where, as here, separate causes of action existed for wrongful death and survivorship claims."); Wachstein v. Slocum, 265 NJ Super. 6, 23 (App. Div.) (ordering a new trial limited to the issue of damages because the jury had returned a lump sum verdict on two of plaintiff's distinct claims and the Appellate Court reversed the judgment on one of them), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 563, and, certif. denied, 134 N.J. 563 (1993); Bussell v. DeWalt Prods. Corp., 204 NJ Super. 288, 295 (App. Div. 1985) ("to...facilitate trial and appellate court inquiry as to alleged verdict excessiveness, the court and counsel might alternatively consider requiring the jury to separately assess and report the components of the lump sum verdict"), rev'd, 105 N.J. 223 (1987); Amato v. Amato, 180 N.J. Super. 210, 219-20 (App. Div. 1981) ("There is no immutable rule in negligence cases requiring a plaintiff to receive a lump sum verdict encompassing pain, suffer
