¶1dissenting.
¶2The majority properly points out the potential problems inherent in allowing a per diem argument: the danger of excessively high verdicts necessitating new trials, jury abuse of the per diem figure as evidence of value of the pain and suffering, and a more frequent need to consider remittitur. In short, by our decision today we merely further complicate an area of the law which need not be further complicated. Yet, for this additional burden to be placed on our courts, the majority offers no affirmative benefit of allowing the per diem argument but simply attempts to refute the standard arguments against it.
¶3The fixing of monetary damages for pain and suffering is within the exclusive province of the jury. To suggest that a figure for just compensation can be fixed with mathematical certainty is, *664to say the least, misleading. Typically, there is no evidentiary basis whatsoever for a mathematical formula. Certainly no witness is qualified to testify that the injured party’s pain and suffering is worth a sum certain in dollars and cents per hour or minute.
¶4While it is possible that the per diem argument may lead to an excessive verdict, I do not fear that so much as I do the probability that the jury will, in spite of cautionary instructions, be led to believe that the mathematical formula is itself some evidence of the value of the pain and suffering. This possibility is recognized by the majority as evidenced by its suggested cautionary instruction that the per diem “argument does not constitute evidence.”
¶5If the jury’s ultimate obligation is to arrive at a lump sum amount which, in its view, is supported by the evidence (emphasis supplied), and if the per diem argument does not constitute evidence, then the per diem argument serves no legitimate purpose. Although decidedly advantageous to the injured plaintiff, it is an unnecessary advantage and one which does not outweigh the potential abuse and concomitant costs in time and dollars to our courts and the respective litigants. I would vote to reverse the Court of Appeals.