Wakole v. Barber, 722 S.E.2d 238

Barber, a passenger in Wakole's vehicle, sustained injuries in a Nov 10, 2006 collision and sought damages.
Wakole admitted liability but contested the amount of Barber's damages at trial.
Barber presented two medical expense exhibits and claimed total damages of $50,000.
Before closing, Wakole objected to Barber's use of a chart that assigned fixed amounts to each damage category.
Barber used a closing chart to propose a per-category fixed amount and a total request; the jury awarded $30,000.
The circuit court denied Wakole's motions; the issue on appeal concerned closing argument methods and statute 8.01-379.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether closing argument with fixed category amounts violated law	Barber used a fixed-dollars per category approach consistent with evidence.	Certified T.V. forbids per-diem style calculations; improper invasion of jury's province.	No error; fixed-category amounts allowed when supported by evidence.
Whether Code 8.01-379.1 limits damages to a single lump sum	Statute allows informing jurors of damages and may include separate category requests.	statute implies a single total amount; enumeration exceeds allowed scope.	Statute permits informing jury of amounts for different categories; no error.

Certified T.V. & Appliance Co., Inc. v. Harrington, 201 Va. 109 (1959) (forbids unsubstantiated per diem calculations that invade jury's province)
Graham v. Cook, 278 Va. 233 (2009) (closing argument draws jury's attention to evidence and reasonable inferences)
Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96 (2007) (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
Jackson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 269 Va. 303 (2005) (plain meaning governs statutory language)
Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 593 (2003) (avoid adding language to statute not enacted by legislature)
Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769 (1977) (acknowledges evidentiary limits on damages testimony)