January 2024
January 12, 2024
Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 5-19-2014). This case involved the death of Usman Chaudry, an autistic man, in an interaction with the Los Angeles police. The jury found that the police used excessive force and awarded the parents and $700,000 on their wrongful death claim, and $1,000,000 for the pre-death pain and suffering of the decedent under Section § 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act. The trial court judge dismissed the $1,000,000 claim because the California Survival Act does not allow recovery for pre-death pain and suffering. The 9th Circuit held that the pre-death pain and suffering award was allowed to meet the purposes of Section § 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act even though not allowed under California law, and restored the $1,000,000 award.. An economic expert was not involved and the terms “hedonic damges” and “value of life” were not used in the decision.
February 2024
February 18, 2024
Ziegler v. Polaris Indus., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21733 (W.D. NC 2-07-24). Dr. Stan V. Smith’s proposed testimony regarding “reduction in value of life’ and loss of society were excluded by Federal District Judge Martin Reidinger. Judge Reidinger went through Dr. Smith’s methodology for arriving at the annual value of life enjoyment in a detailed fashion, pointing out implications of Dr. Smith’s methods that Judge Reidinger did not find reasonable. One of Judge Reidinger’s examples was as follows:
[W]hen asked why he selected a 35 percent benchmark, Dr. Smith stated that he arrived at this figure because Mr. Ziegler said in an interview that he believed Mrs. Ziegler’s quality of life had been reduced by half or more because of his injuries. . . .However, Dr. Smith stated that 35 percent was just used “as an example[,]” and that it is not his opinion “that the loss of society or relationship that Mrs. Ziegler sustained is 35 percent[.]” . . .This sort of arbitrary sample calculation will not assist the trier of fact, is not based on Dr. Smith’s expertise in economics, is not based on any facts or data, and is not the product of reliable principles and methods. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)-(c). For these reasons, Dr. Smith’s loss of society testimony will be excluded.
McGuire v. Cirrus Design Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152073 (E.D. TX 2-05-2009). This case involved an airplane crash and was decided under Minnesota and not Texas law. Dr. Smith was proffered to testify about reduced enjoyment of life caused by personal injury. The court exluded the testimony of Dr. Smith, saying:
The court [] questions the value of Dr. Smith’s testimony to the jury. As discussed above, Dr. Smith is attempting to apply a generic range or estimate to the specific facts of this case without explaining how he does so. There is little, if any, value to this testimony for the jury, which is surely in a position to utilize its own life experiences and knowledge to determine what amount, if any, to affix to McGuire’s loss of enjoyment of life, if any. At worst, his testimony serves to confuse the jury and artificially inflate any damages. Therefore, because Dr. Smith’s methodology is unexplained, questioned in peer reviewed articles, and not likely to assist the jury, the court will exclude his testimony.
April 2024
April 19, 2024
Rappuhn v. Primal Vantage Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220341 (S.D. AL 12-07-2022). The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the testimony of Stan Smith that was objected to by Primal Vantage. The Plaintiff stated that he will not offer Dr. Smith’s opinions and testimony relating to calculations of economic loss for the reduction in value to Plaintiff’s life. This rendered the defense motion in limine to exclude Dr. Smith to be moot.
May 2024
May 22, 2024
Est. of Melvin v. City of Colorado Springs, CO, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91201 (D. CO. 5-21-2024). The Estate disclosed an economist, Mr. Allen Parkman, to offer expert testimony on hedonic damages. His report explains the general concept of hedonic damages and asserts that $11,000,000 is typically considered the monetary value of a human life based on statistical studies and the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. [] Notably, Mr. Parkman’s suggested damages amount is not specific to Mr. Melvin but, rather, represents “a typical person, which must be adjusted in each case for a specific individual.” . . . Because the parties apparently agree as to the proper scope of Mr. Parkman’s testimony,[] Defendants’ second motion to exclude [] is GRANTED. Mr. Parkman is prohibited from offering any opinions aimed at quantifying the value of Mr. Melvin’s life for purposes of hedonic damages.
May 25, 2024
Aghaeepour v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93322 (S.D. NY 5-24-2024). This case involved alleged fraud by the defendant that cause alleged loss of credit expectancy. The defendant moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stan V. Smith regarding (1) the loss of business income; (2) the lost of credit expectancy; (3) the loss of time spent; (4) reduction in value of life; and (5) the loss of payments to plaintiffs. The Court allowed Smith to testify about the value of lost credit, but not about loss of business income, loss of time spent, reduction in value of life, or payments to plaintiffs. The order limiting Smith included detailed explanation for why each of the excluded categories was excluded. It did not review previous decisions regarding Smith and credit expectancy.
May 29, 2024
Alfaro v. Panther II Transp., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94151 (S.D. TX 5-29-2024). The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the “value of life” testimony of Dr. Stan V. Smith before a motion in limine hearing.
June 2024
June 12, 2024
Koen v. Monsanto Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103409 (W.D. TX 6-11-2024). In this wrongful death case, Dr. Stan V. Smith was offered to “tell the jury that the value of Keon’s enjoyment of life was approximately $4.7 million, that the value of life services Koen offered to his family was roughly $2.2 million, and that the Koen’s family’s loss of society and relationship is roughly $2.7 million.” Federal District Judge Robert Pittman said that the overwhelming majority of courts have concluded that his ‘willingness-to-pay. methodology is either unreliable or not likely to assist the jury in valuing hedonic damages. Pittman added that “Smith’s calculations do not reach a sufficiently individual level to guide the jury in their assessment of damages.”