¶1(dissenting in part). I would reverse the judgment as to both defendants, to the end that there be a new trial of the entire issue; but I join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Francis on the question of introducing to the jury, in summation, a mathematical formula for the admeasurement of damages for pain and suffering.
26 N.J. 82
138 A.2d 713
Botta v. Brunner
Decided February 3, 1958
Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1958-02-03
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“6. In an action for bodily injuries, it is an unwarranted intrusion into the jury's domain for plaintiff's counsel to suggest in his summation to the jury a monetary mathematical formula, based on a specified amount per hour for the admeasurement of damages for pain and suffering. 7. The measure of damages for pain and suffering following a personal injury is `fair and reasonable compensation,' since there can be no fixed basis, table, standard, or mathematical rule which will serve as an accurate index and guide to the establishment of awards of damages for personal injuries. 8. There is no measure by which the amount of pain and suffering endured by a particular human can be calculated, and no standard of value which can be applied; any effort to attach a price tag thereto must become lost in emotion, fancy and speculation.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Crum v. Ward
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1958-02-03
How this case has been cited
Cited by 237 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 625 So. 2d 1002 - Lasha v. Olin Corp. (1993), Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 190 state decisions — followed in 40 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →