Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb, the Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the permissibility of attorneys arguing the monetary value of pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases under Tenn. Code Ann. 20-9-304. The court concluded that such arguments are allowed, provided they are supported by evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence presented. Furthermore, any argument regarding the monetary value of pain and suffering must be accompanied by jury instructions clarifying that attorneys' statements are not evidence. Justice William C. Koch, Jr. emphasized that the court's interpretation of the statute does not endorse any specific method of argumentation, including the commonly used "per diem" approach, which suggests a daily value for noneconomic damages. He noted that the appropriateness of specific arguments should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in future proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Case-by-Case Evaluation of Argument Appropriatenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court did not endorse any specific method of argumentation and stated that the suitability of particular arguments should be determined individually in future cases.
Reasoning: Justice William C. Koch, Jr. emphasized that the court's interpretation of the statute does not endorse any specific method of argumentation, including the commonly used 'per diem' approach, which suggests a daily value for noneconomic damages. He noted that the appropriateness of specific arguments should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in future proceedings.
Jury Instructions Regarding Attorneys' Statementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Any argument presented about the monetary value of pain and suffering must be accompanied by clear instructions to the jury that these statements by attorneys do not constitute evidence.
Reasoning: Furthermore, any argument regarding the monetary value of pain and suffering must be accompanied by jury instructions clarifying that attorneys' statements are not evidence.
Permissibility of Arguing Monetary Value of Pain and Sufferingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allows attorneys to argue the monetary value of pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, as long as these arguments are based on evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the permissibility of attorneys arguing the monetary value of pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases under Tenn. Code Ann. 20-9-304. The court concluded that such arguments are allowed, provided they are supported by evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence presented.