How do juries calculate “pain & suffering” as an element of damages for plaintiffs?
The role of the jury in awarding compensatory damages is clear. However, juries can actually face problems when calculating and awarding damages, particularly in areas where the damages are not easily quantified. Damages for pain and suffering are one such problematic component of compensatory damages. The process by which pain and suffering damages are awarded in the United States has been aptly called “procedurally simple but analytically impenetrable,” by David Leebron. One author described the problem as, “an inescapable reality of the pain and suffering conundrum is that tort law requires the monetization of a ‘product’ for which there is no market and, therefore, no market price…The monetization are given no ‘absolute’ standard by which to do it. There is none to give them. Each juror must create or bring their own standard to the courtroom,” by Oscar G. Chase.
Despite the difficulties these issues pose, Indiana courts have found that awards for pain, suffering, fright, humiliation, and mental anguish are particularly within the province of the jury because they involve the weighing of evidence and credibility of witnesses. Physical and mental pain are, by their very nature, not readily susceptible to quantification, and, therefore, the jury is given very wide latitude in determining these kinds of damages. Damages for pain and suffering are of necessity a jury question that may not be reduced to fixed rules and mathematical precision. Where the damages cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty, the jury has liberal discretion in assessing damages. Our inability to look into the minds of jurors and determine how they computed an award is, to a large extent, the reason behind the rule that a verdict will be upheld if the award falls within the bounds of the evidence. These principles, while easily stated, are not easily applied. The appropriate degree of oversight by a court into the decision-making process of the jury, especially in an area such as pain and suffering, is not an easy thing to determine. Affording a jury the discretion it is due while at the same time making sure the verdict is within the bounds of the evidence can sometimes be a difficult balance to strike.