8.10 DAMAGES
— EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONS Civil Model Jury Charge
(Approved 12/95)
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 in which the trial includes a
claim for damages.
NOTE
TO JUDGE
See also Model Civil Charge 1.12O Damages.
B. Sample Damage Verdict Sheet for a Personal
Injury Case (Approved 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? $__________
TOTAL $__________
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 Comments:
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 N.J. 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 N.J. Super. 6, 23 (App. Div. 1993)
(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 (1993); Bussell v. DeWalt Prods.
Corp., 204 N.J. 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, suffering, medical expenses and lost wages. Special jury interrogatories may be utilized
to delineate the separate factors of recovery.”) But cf.
Eyoma v. Falco, 247 N.J. Super.
435, 454-55 (App. Div. 1991) (pursuant to New Jersey’s wrongful death statute,
“damages for wrongful death must be assessed by the jury in a lump sum”).
The principle stated in Eyoma, supra, 247 N.J. Super. at 435, is not in conflict with Black, supra, 298 N.J. Super.
at 630. While wrongful death damages
such as loss of contribution, counsel and guidance are assessed in a lump sum,
they are separable from economic losses (lost wages, medical expenses) and
other non-economic losses (pain and suffering).
The trial judge should request
proposed written verdict sheets from counsel sufficiently in advance of closing
arguments. Benson v. Brown, 276 N.J.
Super. 553, 565 (App. Div. 1994).
The court should then discuss with counsel the proposed versions of the
verdict sheet. Ibid. “In the end the judge has the ultimate responsibility for
insuring the correctness of the verdict sheet.”
Ibid.
