D. Loss of Earnings[1] (Revised 2/04)
1. Past Lost Earnings[2] (Approved 11/99)
One part of plaintiff's claim is lost earnings. Plaintiff has a right to be compensated for any earnings lost as a result of injuries caused by defendant's wrongdoing.[3]
In thinking about this, you should understand that any award for loss of earnings must be based on net or take‑home pay and not on gross income.[4] This is because only the take‑home pay — the amount left after taking out taxes — would have been available to plaintiff, and the amount you award is not subject to Federal and New Jersey income taxes.[5]
So the first thing you must decide is this: was plaintiff disabled by his/her injuries which in turn resulted in a loss of income? If you find that took place, next you have to decide and fix the amount of lost earnings. You do this by considering the length of time during which plaintiff was not able to work, what his/her income was before the injuries, how much he/she earned upon return to work, whether the injuries affected his/her ability to do any tasks required on the job and any lessening or decrease in his/her income after returning to work.
You should also think about any special skills plaintiff has and whether there were other jobs available that he/she was able to do so that he/she could earn some income. Plaintiff must try to minimize the damages resulting from a loss of earnings, but extraordinary or impractical efforts are not necessary. All that is required are reasonable efforts and ordinary care in trying to reduce the loss.[6]
In determining the amount of lost earnings, you make your decision based upon the earnings that were probably lost.[7] Naturally, this means that you must exercise your sound judgment, since plaintiff does not have to prove the loss of earnings with precision, but rather with reasonable probability.
2. Future Lost Earnings[8] (Approved 11/99)
a. Preliminary Charge to be Given Before Any Expert Testimony
In this phase of the case, you are about to hear expert opinion testimony on certain economic claims made. You will be the final judges of the reliability of the experts' projections of future economic losses. Any bottom line figure offered by the expert will be based on certain assumptions that the expert will make concerning probable future economic trends.
In evaluating the reliability of the expert's projections, you may consider the cross-examination by the attorneys and also any evidence presented by the opposing parties on this issue such as other expert testimony. At this stage of the case, you should keep an open mind regarding the reliability of these bottom-line figures and not give them automatic acceptance. I repeat, it will be your responsibility and your responsibility alone to determine at the close of the case the amount of economic losses suffered by the plaintiff, based upon all the credible evidence you choose to accept on this question.
b. Final Charge To Be Given At Conclusion of Case If There Is No Expert Testimony
Plaintiff also seeks to recover earnings that will be lost in the future. Plaintiff has a right to be compensated for any earnings which you find will probably be lost as a result of the injuries brought about by defendant's wrongdoing.[9]
If you decide from the evidence in this case that it is reasonably probable that plaintiff will lose income in the future, because [either] he/she has not been able to return to work [or] he/she has not been able to keep the same job [or] he/she will be able to work for a shorter period of time, then you should also include an amount to make up for those lost earnings. In deciding how much your verdict should be to cover future lost income, think about the factors mentioned in discussing past earning losses, such as the nature, extent and duration of injury. Also consider plaintiff's age today, his/her general state of health before the accident, how long you reasonably expect the loss of income to continue and how much plaintiff can earn in any available job that he/she physically will be able to do. Obviously, the time period covering plaintiff's future lost earnings cannot go beyond that point when it was expected that he/she would stop working because of retirement, if plaintiff had not been injured.[10] You should also consider the probabilities of increases in earnings resulting from raises for productivity or promotion, and plaintiff's life expectancy and work‑life expectancy before the injury.[11]
But you should be aware that the figures that you have been given on life expectancy and work‑life expectancy are only statistical averages. Do not treat them as necessary or fixed rules, since they are general estimates. Use them with caution and use your sound judgment in taking them into account.
For future lost earnings, as well as past lost earnings, you must base your decision on probable net earnings, the take‑home pay, the amount left after taxes are deducted. It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his/her net income and the probable loss of future earnings.[12]
In deciding what plaintiff's future losses are, understand that the law does not require of you mathematical exactness. Rather, you must use sound judgment based on reasonable probability.[13]
c. Effects of Interest and Inflation on Future Earnings
Note to Judge:
Do not charge if parties stipulate that interest and inflation rates will offset each other.
Once you have decided how much money plaintiff will lose in the future, you must then consider the effects of inflation and interest. As to inflation, you should consider the effects it probably will have in reducing the purchasing power of money. Any award for future losses may be increased to account for losses in the purchasing power of that money because of inflation. The consideration of interest requires that you should not just award plaintiff the exact amount of money that he/she will be losing in the future. Plaintiff will have that money now even though he/she will not have incurred the loss of that money until some time in the future. And that means that plaintiff will be able to invest the money and earn interest on it now even though he/she otherwise would not have had that money to invest until some future date.
To make up for this, you must make an adjustment for plaintiff's having the money available now even though the loss will not be experienced until the future. This adjustment is known as discounting, and discounting gives you the value of the money that you get now instead of getting it at some future time. In other words, it gives you the present value or present worth in a single lump sum of money which otherwise was going to be received over a number of years at so much per year.
Your goal is to create a fund of money, which, if paid today, will fairly compensate plaintiff for his or her future loss of earnings. In arriving at the amount of that fund — the present value of future losses — you should consider the interest the fund will probably earn in future years; the probable amount by which taxation on the interest might decrease the money available to plaintiff and the effect of inflation in decreasing the purchase power of money. The higher the interest rate you believe the fund will earn in future years, the lower will be the amount of the fund needed to fairly compensate plaintiff for future earnings. On the other hand, the higher the probable rate of inflation in future years, the higher will be the amount of the fund needed to fairly compensate plaintiff. It is possible that the interest earned in the future could be offset exactly by the rate of inflation in which event these factors could cancel each other out and you could award the net lost wages for the appropriate number of years without any adjustment.
d. Final Charge to be Given at Conclusion of Case If There was Expert Testimony on the "Bottom Line"
You have heard one (or an expert for each side) discuss the present value of plaintiff's future earning loss including their projections as to future interest, including its tax consequences, and inflation rates. You may consider some, all, or none of the opinions of the experts in determining a fair figure to compensate plaintiff for his or her future lost earnings. The experts have also given you their "bottom line" figures as to plaintiff's future lost earnings. As I told you previously, you need not give any of these "bottom line" figures automatic acceptance. You are free to determine, based on all the evidence, including the expert testimony you choose to accept, what amount of dollars will fairly compensate plaintiff for his/her future lost earnings.
3. Loss of Future Earning Capacity: Infant Plaintiff With Permanent, Severe Injury[14] (Approved 5/90)
If you find the evidence establishes that the infant plaintiff suffered a severe injury with lasting or permanent effects and that the injury will within reasonable probability impair the infant plaintiff's future earning capacity, you should consider that item of damages.
In the case of an infant plaintiff we don't know what job or profession the plaintiff would eventually undertake were it not for this severe injury.
Therefore, with regard to an infant's loss of future earning capacity, the law cannot provide any better yardstick than your own sound judgment and experience. You are not to arbitrarily award damages for an infant plaintiff's loss of earning capacity but rather you are to use your own good conscience, sound judgment and experience and determine what loss of future earning capacity is reasonably probable to result from plaintiff's injury.
Note to Judge:
Add appropriate language concerning present value of future loss of earnings.
4. Loss of Earnings Where Plaintiff Has Received P.I.P. Income Continuation Benefits (Approved 12/88, Revised 2/04)
This charge is deleted in its entirety. While Ruff v. Weintraub, 105 N.J. 233, 242 (1987) requires all wage losses to be determined by the jury on a “net” basis rather than “gross” wages, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 bars the admission of PIP benefits, wage losses or medical expenses into evidence. See, Clifford v. Opdyke, 156 N.J. Super. 208, 213 (App. Div. 1978).
Note that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 bars admission of wage loss benefits into evidence whether they are “paid” or just “collectible.”
In practice, the jury should determine plaintiff’s “net” wage loss after taxes are deducted from “gross” income, and counsel should disclose to the Court if the plaintiff was covered by a policy of insurance that would provide PIP wage loss benefits. The Court would then mold the jury’s verdict to credit defendant with $100 for each week that the jury found plaintiff lost wages. Unless the plaintiff purchased supplemental, increased PIP coverages, the maximum credit would be $5,200. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.
These benefits would be treated similar to other “collateral sources.” See Adamson v. Chiavaro, 308 N.J. Super. 70, 78-81 (App. Div. 1998) (New York PIP policy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] It is unclear to the Committee whether economic damage awards and/or emotional distress damage awards under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination are subject to either Federal and/or New Jersey State income taxation. See generally, 26 U.S.C. § 104(a); IRS Rev. Ruling 96-56; United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 112 S. Ct. 1867 (1992); and Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 115 S. Ct. 2159 (1995), regarding federal taxation of awards under federal discrimination law. Thus, it is unclear to the Committee whether the statement in the Charge that an award for lost earnings (Charge 6.11D) and an award for personal injury (Charge 6.19) is “not subject to federal or state income tax” is accurate with respect to awards under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. In Wachstein v. Slocum, 265 N.J. Super. 6, 24 (App. Div. 1993) certif. denied, 134 N.J. 563 (1993), the Appellate Division noted the “present uncertainty of the law in this area” and observed that “we believe the wisest course would be for the trial court to omit any reference to taxability in its instructions to the jury.” See also, Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 50 F. 3d 1204, 1220 (3rd Cir. 1995) (citing Wachstein, the Court states that “we are confident that the New Jersey courts would not require that the award be calculated on net income”). The Committee believes that the nature and scope of instructions, if any, on the tax consequences of these awards should await further guidance from the appellate courts.
[2] This section applies only where the plaintiff alleges a loss of salary. Where there is an allegation that plaintiff lost other benefits, such as medical coverage, pension benefits, etc., the instructions must be molded to incorporate those concepts.
[3] Smith v. Red Top Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 443 (E.& A. 1933).
[4] Ruff v. Weintraub, 105 N.J. 233, 238 (1987).
[5] Ibid.; Bussell v. DeWalt Products, 105 N.J. 233, 228‑229 (1987).
[6] McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 299 (1979), as to general duty to mitigate damages. Refer also to Assoc. Metals Corp. v. Dixon Chem., 82 N.J.Super. 281, 307 (App. Div. 1964), and Robinson v. Gonzalez, 213 N.J.Super. 364, 371 ‑ 372 (App. Div. 1986).
[7] Moore v. Pub. Serv. Coordin. Transp., 15 N.J.Super. 499, 510 (App. Div. 1951).
[8] These instructions are based upon DeHanes v. Rothman, 158 N.J. 90 (1999) overruling, Tenore v. NuCar Carriers, Inc. 67 N.J. 466 (1975).
[9] Coll v. Sherry, 29 N.J. 166, 175 (1959).
[10] The collateral source rule (see cases under Model Charge 6.11(A)) applies to loss of earnings as well as to medical and hospital expenses. Plaintiff may recover damages for loss of earnings although having been paid wages or their equivalent by employer pursuant to sick or annual leave benefits or retirement on half salary under a pension contract. Rusk v. Jeffries, 110 N.J.L. 307, 311 (E. & A. 1933). Chap. 326, L. 1987, eliminates the collateral source rule as to causes of action arising on or after December 18, 1987. Deduction of benefits, less premiums, is done by the court, not the jury. See also N.J.S.A. 59:9‑2(3) for similar effect for Tort Claims Act causes of action.
[11] This concept should be charged if there is appropriate evidence received on the subject. See Charge 6.11H regarding life expectancy.
[12] See Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422, 436 (1994), which requires that the plaintiff prove net income in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
[13] By analogy to future income loss in a wrongful death case. Tenore v .NuCar Carriers, Inc., 67 N.J. 466, 494‑495 (1975). See, also, Friedman v. C. S. Car Service, 108 N.J. 72, 78‑79 (1987).
[14] Lesniak v. Cty. of Bergen, 117 N.J. 12 (1989).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
