*1 Aug. 31, 1966.] In A. Nо. 28909. Bank. [L. BEAGLE, Appellant, v. ELIZABETH Plaintiff and CARL Respondents. al., VASOLD et Defendants *3 Singer Rubin, & Solomon and Richard I. Seltzer for Plain- Appellant. tiff and *4 Oliver, A. Pollock, Horn, Theodore Richard L. Edward I. Heily Beloud, Cartwright, E. Neil D. and
Robert G. Robert on as Amici Curiae behalf Plaintiff and Edward L. Lascher Appellant. Wright Mack, & Edward and Dan Higgs, Fletcher M. E. Respondents. Defendants and
Hedin for Stanbury, McGee, Garrett, Crider, Parker, Peckham & Kelly Gilbert, Thompson & Ruppé, Loomis, Betts & Tilson & as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants Wunderlich Jean and Respondents. brought against action defendants an MOSK. J.Plaintiff by him the result personal injuries suffered of an in his returned a verdict favor accident. automobile judgment appeals from $1,719.48, he in the sum contending thereon, that thе awarded are entered only a matter of law. The issue raised this inadequate as including any parties, curiae, amici is appeal plaintiff’s prohibiting erred in trial court whether general stating argument to the the amount of by plaintiff, either in of a total sum or terms claimed segment. a conclude was error to time We a sum regard. arguments in that counsel’s restrict injuries from an accident in which resulted a ear Plaintiff’s Vasold went over embankment while by Kenneth driven Vasold died as result of his rounding curve in road. occupants car, Beverly other injuries. and two Plaintiff injured.1 Elizabeth, wife, were In the Adams, Vasold’s general $61,025.18 damages, praj^ed for complаint, compensation expenses, earnings, medical loss as well as suit. and costs of attorney plaintiff’s in chambers court informed The trial permitted mention to “the he would lump “any in a sum or in dollars” of his action value many many per day, or such as so dollars so per diem not evidence.”2 In month” because per “[SJuch dollars are Elizabeth Vasold and the adminis in this action 1The defendants of Vasold’s estate. trator attorney following colloquy plaintiff’s between occurred 2The during opening statement: court Singer: just very briefly you to talk with about want I "Mb. money controversy do, I I this case. Before remember amount opening chambers; apрly your that did not admonition Honor’s correct, your statements, is that Honor? At all times. "The Court: Yes. Singer: your times, Honor? At all "Mb. Except special. Ves. as to your "The Court: Singer: Oh, I see. "Mr. general. But as "The Court: Singer: your right. you, Thank Honor.” All "Mb. *5 arguments request, counsel confined his this with accordance damages past to the and question of amount of antici the on expenses description earnings, loss of of and pated medical general injuries, statements to the effect that plaintiff’s and past pain recover for and future and plaintiff was entitled to resulting suffering from the Plaintiff’s accident. medical up time trial and expenses $1,377.48, to the of were his total damages special $21,502.48. jury’s was the for Thus claim $1,719.48 $342 amounts to more than the medical of verdict prior expenses to trial. His motion for a new trial incurred on inadequacy ground denied of was the the court. trial appeal, the On this is contended that trial court’s action restricting general of in the counsel the issue of prejudicial. that erroneous and the error was Prior to the court summation, and counsel the discussed scope in of chambers as follows: permissible suggestion during My “The Court: to counsel that is their summa- tion that no be made, calculations either or verbally on the blackboard, diem so any per of dollars many per day; mаny so given dollars month. of per Further, not opinion his in as to the value of action dollars. is Such not evidence. Singer; “Mb. If I understand Court’s instructions on this point, figures damages, I then to talk in am about permitted specific the special damages? the medical “The Court: No about that. Singer: wages—but “Mr. And the loss of not about the estimated wages—in figures, loss of specific future terms of I so? may do general “The Court: Yes. That is special. only This to applies damages. Singer: figures “Mr. I see. Then I may only speak terms of if as to the amount to be awarded my clients, there is an award, for suffering; generally and for permanent disability and is pain cor- rect? “The Court: This is my That counsel not request: tell the general damages in his opinion the are worth $50,000 or $40,000, or $25. Of as to course, your special, naturally those are fixed amounts. They have to and nothing been testified are they evidence; but there is general damages. in the any evidence whatsoever of amount of Do you understand each one? Singer: “Mr. Yes.” regard general damages, the question 3With plaintiff’s attorney closing argument: Beagle’s stated “Mr. vision, course, was affected (writing). accident. His life by the is years 30.5 expectancy And he is entitled to an award based on the permanent disability he will incur the result of this accident. And, course, an award suffering which pаin and he incurred as the result of this accident Beagle will incur future. You will recall Mr. was in the hospital injured days. He, course, was in the accident with severe head lacerations, and has worn a brace for corset-type the last two years as things the result of the are accident. You entitled take these into suffering, consideration as far as pain and ’ ’ that he will necessarily incur in the future. imposed upon jury in decid most tasks difficult One injuries involving personal is determine the ing a case compensa money is be awarded as amount suffering. the jury method is available to No tion damages, objectively and no evaluate such it can which subjеctive opinion (See on matter. express his witness pp. (3d 1940) 944, 55-56.) In a ed. Wigmore, Evidence § sense, asked to evaluate terms very real compensation monetary which cannot
"money a detriment accuracy. any demonstrable As with ascertained be one subject said, “Translating pain has writer on *6 arbitrary can, best, only at be an allow anguish into dollars consequently process measurement, of and ance, and not a give go instructions, jury no his standard to judge can, in only them allow such amount as in their tell to by; he can may they . . . The chief consider reasonable. discretion reaching attempting in reasonable results value reliаnce money suffering of must be the restraint and common in terms (McCormick jury. Damages, 88, pp. of the ...” sense § 318-319.) question turning propriety of the to the so- Before significant that, note argument,4 it called holding attorney specifically found an has been no ease while general jury to the total amount of the may inform the implication damages sought plaintiff, there is a clear may attorney, an be made and a statement that such challenge seriously plaintiff’s assertion do not here defendants limiting in in court erred counsel’s the trial regard. this long practice attorneys of in has been a courtroom this It plaintiff jury total amount tell state seeks, technique questioning of the come to our and no has Sanguinetti dissenting opinion (See Carter, J., in attention. 812, 823, Dry (1951) Dock Co. 36 842 v. Moore Cal.2d [228 (1929) Cal.App. 464, 557]; Ritzman v. Mills 102 472 P.2d may attorney frequently 88].) Moreover, P. an [283 including jury. complaint, prayer, to the does read 410, 414-415 (Knight (1888) 698]; Russ 77 P. see v. Cal. [19 472.) Mills, supra, p. Finally, the trial v at Ritzman may that the claims a certain instruct the court argument by opinion in the refer 4TMs term will be used suggests segmentation which to be allowed
counsel for tain money representing into a stated amount a cer period day, time, $5 such as each etc.
173
complaint
damages in
no more than
his
amount as
(Sanguinetti
Dry
v. Moore
Dock
may be awarded.
this sum
(1928)
v. McMenamin
Co.,
p. 816; Lahti
204 Cal.
supra, at
McNulty
(1950)
Southern
644];
v.
Pac. Co.
415, 421
P.
[268
534].) In
841,
P.2d
the Lahti case
Cal.App.2d
852-853
[216
usually given
negli
an instruction “is
it was
said
to understand how
gence eases, and it is difficult
by the court”
properly instructed
without a
can be
such cases
(204
p. 421; see
type.
Cal. at
also BAJI
direction
this
Nos.
Pennsylvania
173-C.)
hand,
On
173, 173-A, 173-B,
the other
Jersey prohibit disclosure of this information to the
and New
Hershey (1894)
907,
174
;
181
P.2d
Johnson
Brown
(1962) 140 Mont.
v.
917]
[368
Village
754];
P.2d
v.
Nev. 437
Grossnickle
(1959) 75
[345
(1965)
442];
175 permit “per dеsirable to of the view argument.6 (See generally favoring “per argument: Phillips, (1962) Botta in Focus Trial 69; Law. Guide Note Rutgers (1958) 522; (1962) 12 L.Rev. 60 Note Mich.L.Rev. 612; (1959) 832; 43 (1963) Note Minn.L.Rev. Note 17 94; (1961) Note 41 432; Ark.L.Rev. B.U.L.Rev. (1961) Note (1959) 38 62; Chi.-Kent L.Rev. Note 28 138; U.Cinc.L.Rev. 11 (1962) 495; (1959) Note Clev.-Mar.L.Rev. Note 36 Dicta 373; (1962) 344; (1962) Note Duke L.J. Note 13 Hastings (1962) 11 502; 170; Note (1961) L.J. 10 Kan.L.Rev. Note 93; (1960) Kan.L.Rev. Note 38 289; N.C.L.Rev. (1963) Note 209; 39 Note (1960) N.D.L.Rev. 33 So.Cal.L.Rev. 214; Note S.C.L.Q. (1962) disfavoring 14 442; generally “per diem” argument: 12 (1963) Note De Paul 317; L.Rev. Note (1961) Ky.L.J. 592; (1962) 49 Note 461; La.L.Rev. (1962) Note 23 573; (1963) Ohio St. L.J. Note 468; Okla.L.Rev. Note 1303; (1958) Vand.L.Rev. Note 137; Vill.L.Rev. Note 237; W.Va.L.Rev. Note (1959) 61 W.Va. 302.) L.Rev. We believe the reasons hereinafter persuasively discussed require align California to jurisdic- itself with majority tions on this issue. opening guns prohibit in the battle to an attorney from arguing damages on a diem” basis were sounded in (1958) supra, Brunner 713, Botta v. A.2d and every deci- holding sion since Botta to be improper has part, reasoning followed, employed at least in in that case. Supreme Jersey upheld In Botta Court New the trial permit plaintiff’s attorney suggest refusal court’s his client’s be measured for each day, essentially stated number dollars on the rationale that such statements counsel are not evidence and evidence, have jurors no foundation in the but the minds of they speculative “unproven, substitute and fanciful standards of evaluation for evidence.” “In analysis, The court stated: the final we hold the view suggestions approve sort we are asked to here constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the domain of the
jury. . . pain, . ‘Jurors know nature of embarrassment inconvenience, they also know the money. nature of compilation journals published 6Not included this are articles from by organizations Institute, Inc., such as the Defense Research formerly Lawyers Association, American Trial Association of Claimants known as the National Compensation Attorneys. *9 problem equating the two to afford reasonable and Their high
just compensation calls for a order of human judgment, provided yardstick guid has no better for and the law their enlightened problem than their Their ance conscience. is not of mathematical but one involves an calculation exercise of ” judgment right.’ (138 their of what fair and sound is A.2d 725.) at p. forthrightness long With commendable Botta overruled a Jersey proper line which had of New cases held it for an attorney jury damages the of the total amount of advise suggest sought by plaintiff or the a total amount as reason- ground compensation, on the it able that would be inconsistent jury damages to allow the prohibiting to know the total amount of while suggesting by “per counsel from means of a he at the diem” evaluation how arrived total. reasoning convincing. do nоt find We the Botta is, It pain course, suffering axiomatic that are difficult to monetary inescapable measure terms. Yet the fact is that precisely jury upon this is what the is called to do. As one plaintiff critic has of Botta noted: “The money. sues for The against money. defendant defends an award of jury is expressing findings limited to less, its money. terms of Neverthe- jury precluded hearing any must from be reference money. whatever to It must retire to the room in vacuo on this essential of case where the unmentionable and magical conversion from broken bones to hard may cash then place.” (Note (1958) supra, Rutgers take 12 522.) L.Rev. argument It undeniablе that is of counsel does not However, constitute evidence. follow, it does not as averred in suggestion Botta, that the a damages sum for can have no foundation the evidence. Indeed it necessarily is inferred plaintiff from observation in the courtroom and from expert testimony regarding injuries the nature of his and their consequences. If the must infer from what sees and hears at the trial that money a certain amount of is warranted compensation plaintiff’s pain for the and suffering, is there justification prohibiting no making from a similar argument. attorney deduction An permitted is all discuss reasonable inferences from (4-County evidence. Electric Clardy Power Assn. Miss. So.2d 144, 151-152, 1191]; A.L.R.2d Wright D. J. & Son Truck (Tex.Civ.App. Line v. Chandler 1950) 786, S.W.2d 789.) paradoxical It would be to hold in totality are inferable from the evidence but that when this sum is divided segments representing days, into years, months infer-' " ence vanishes. s attorney suggests Thus, an who that hi client’s pain suffering “per calculated on presenting diem” not basis is evidence to the but merely drawing an given from the inference evidence at the course, , trial. Of court power the trial has the duty legitimate to contain within bounds and it prevent attorney drawing inferences not warranted example, permitted the evidence. For counsel should not be argue future on a justify basis where the evidence an would infer ence that will suffer the future. aspect Another of Botta dubious is its conclusion attorney province employs who invades the jury. patently It attorney seems clear that an jury’s does not any greater with decision-making powers interfere *10 suggests extent when he that be measured segmented on a basis than jury when exhorts the he find the negligent. defendant It has never been jury contended that the duty determining forsakes of its whether the defendant acted permitted aas man reasonable because counsel is to discuss the participants’ conduct and the inferences to drawn be. therefrom. Nor should we conclude as a of mаtter law ignore jury that a will the court’s instructions to award a compensation plaintiff’s, reasonable amount the inevitably that it will choose an indefensible slavishly following suggestions of course counsel’s on dam merely argument ages, pensation because he asserts in that com “per be measured on a diem” should basis. jury judge is, any event, the ultimate the inferences to presented be evidence drawn from the it is so instructed by the court. including Many authorities, Botta, point that out it is permit logically jury suggest inconsistent counsel to inform the lump plaintiff
the
the
sum amount claimed
awarded,
shielding
jury
certain
be
while
the
a
sum
suggestion
fragmented
the total amount
represent periods of time. These
reason that
eases
discussion
speculation
“per
amount
no more
than
diem”
involves
a
supra,
figure.
(See,
Wenk
e.g.,
(1961)
Yates v.
109
total
Mattingly
Louisville & Nashville R.R.
v.
828, 831;
N.W.2d
Co.
161;
Caley Manicke
supra,
155,
but see
v.
(1960)
S.W.2d
339
Duguay
(1962)
206, 209;
N.E.2d
v. Gelinas
(1962) supra, Transport
v. Milwaukee & Suburban
451;
182 A.2d
supra,
Affett
274, 280;
Franco
supra, 106 N.W.2d
cf.
v.
rp.
(1960)
Co
748-750.)7
supra,
740,
Indeed,
Fujimoto (1964)
390 P.2d
reasoning
found the
that, while it
the court stated
Nevada ease
compelled
“per
persuasive,
to allow
very
it felt
of Botta
telling
practice
argument
in Nevada
because of the
diem”
damages sought by
plaintiff.
total amount of
754, 759.)8
(1959) supra, 345 P.2d
(Johnson
Brown
v.
segmented
may calculate the
amount
Moreover, the
itself
figures
from the
has under discussion
which it
of a verdict
lump
sought, it
sum amount
since, in addition to the
available
expectancy
where
customarily
life
told the
is
it
future detriment.
claimed there will be
is
legal
subjective
indicate the
scholars
actual
Some
basis
“per
argument
improper
hold the
diem”
which
decisions
is
argument
(see, e.g.,
the belief such
results
excessive verdicts
(1962)
269, 274;
(1960) supra,
U.Ill.L.F.
Note
33 So.Cal.
Note
219)
prohibit
214,
courts which
L.Rev.
lack
demonstrate a
of confidence in the
(see
189,
system
191;
Note
U.Fla.L.Rev.
Note
625).
(1962) supra,
612,
60 Mich.L.Rev.
Even if it can
larger
verdicts result on
when the
be established
occasions
employed,
necеssarily
does not
are
under
that these awards
excessive
follow
circumstances
pointed
particular
since,
hereinafter,
cases
out
both
appellate
power
duty
courts have the
the trial and the
unreasonably large.
which are
As was
to reduce verdicts
stated
verdicts,
case, “if the evil feared is excessive
then the
in one
against
ought
product,
to be directed
cure
Colglazier
(Johnson
420,
practice.”
425,
v.
F.2d
opinion;
majority opinion in
Johnson
(dissenting
Transport
(5th
in Baron Tube
Ins. Co.
Co.
Cir.
overruled
858).)
365 F.2d
1966) supra,
danger
which cite the
of the cases
excessive
Some
*11
disapproving
“per
argu-
for
the
a basis
diem”
supra,
Faught
(1959)
588,
Washam
(e.g.,
v.
S.W.2d
ment
Franco
it was held there was no
between
incompatibility
7In
ease
the
jury
allowing
the
as to the total amount
claimed
to instruct
the court
argument,
refusing
the
diem”
be
"per
to permit
the
while
plaintiff,
jury
the
of the limit on
the former was to advise
the
of
purpose
cause
deciding
refrained
The court expressly
the amount of its verdict.
argue for
sum
it
for counsel
a
award.
specific lump
was proper
whether
(390
2.)
fn.
at p. 249,
P.2d
is one of the states which leaves
the
8As set
forth
Nevada
above,
argument
of
diem”
to the discretion of
of the propriety
"per
the trial court.
(Braddock v. Seaboard Airline
point
a Florida cаse
604)
(Fla. 1955)
662,
127)
80 So.2d
affd. 96 So.2d
R.R. Co.
argued
jury
were
“per diem”
which
requested by
$248,439,the exact amount
of
a verdict
returned
plaintiff’s
Angeles
Lines,
v. Los
Transit
In
counsel.
Seffert
498,
type
supra,
56 Cal.2d
the same
Inc.
$187,903.75
returned,
was
and a verdict
also
made
was
proposed by
attorney. Despite
coinciding
sum
the
the
with
foregoing,
such as the
can
instances
there
be little
isolated
majority
jury
the vast
of cases the
that in
does not
doubt
suggestions
regardless
damages,
toas
follow counsel’s
Boutang
(e.g.,
City
proposed mathematical basis
v. Twin
(1956)
'
duty
test, the trial court has the
to reduce
this
meet
does not
authority
the
appellate court has
review the
it,
the
and
permits
of reasonableness
the
sure, the standard
be
result.9. To
convincing
discretion, but there
no
is
latitude
jury a wide
accuracy
evaluation
its
would be
that
the
assurance
suggesting
by prohibiting
from
that
the
enhanced
suffering
pain and
compensation for
be measured
plaintiff’s
by
than
periods of time rather
a total sum
aggrеgates of short
longer period.
award
meaningful
safeguards
prevent
Second,
exist
there
expected
by
being
client,
of him
his
jury
misled. As
from
the
urge
jury
maximum
attorney will
the
to award the
plaintiff’s
damages
plausibly justifies,
which the evidence
but
amount of
refraining
grossly exagger
best of reasons
he has the
doing
since, by
so, may
credulity
tax the
ating
claim
he
so
his
disregard
argument.
jury
his entire
Counsel
that
it will
overpersuasion”
(Brown, J., in Hall v.
“the risk of
assumes
App.
167, 169]).
N.E.2d
If
Ohio
Burkert
[193
by
Affett,
claim
the
dsecribed in
his
device
there
he overstates
pointing
nothing
prevent defense counsel from
out this
is
argue
suggested
stratagem or to
the amount
is excessive
that
jury’s duty
only
and.emphasize that
the
tо award
a reason
is
compensation.10
important,
More
the
able sum
.trial
Erecting
Modern
Co.
N.W.2d
[136
In' Thill v.
Every case which has considered the issue before us has emphasized difficulty faced in attempting to monetary compensation measure in subjective injuries terms as pain, humiliation and embarrassment. The cases abound broad statements such as that' the matter is “impartial judgment entrusted to the jurors conscienceand of may expected reasonably, who harmony be to act intelligently and in evidence,” they with the and that are to award compensation” guided “fair observation, reasonable and and be “their experience and sense of right.” fairness and e.g, Botta (See, (1958) supra, Brunner 138 A.2d pp. at 718- provide 720.) These homilies little assistance jury. to the circumstances, concept some Under may meaningful become more when it is measured in short periods span than many of time over a years, pеrhaps into Í3ifinity. The period “worth” over a of decades is grasp concept more difficult reality often as a than is the experience limited to a day, same a week or a month. It is this very consideration which underlies much of controversy the issue before xis. over diem” The fact the “.per argument provides explicit comprehension a more plaintiff’s predicament humanization of the lay jurors approach an makes this effective tool in the hands of his attorney. not, This however, alone is a sufficient reason to condemn it. pause “per We to note that the diem” device is not exclusively plaintiffs seeking damages.
beneficial
It
ais
double-edged
equal availability
sword with
utility
argument by
defendant’s counsel who
employ the tech
dividing plaintiff’s
nique of
total
segments
demand into time
exaggerated
in order to illustrate how
ludicrous
claim
may be.
argument
Denial
deprives
diem”
advocacy
of the full fruits of effective
on the
damages,
issue of
infrequently
which is not
the crucial conflict in the trial of an
personal injuries.
action
Only
persuasive
the most
justify handcuffing attorneys
reasons
in the exercise of their
advocacy within the bounds of propriety.
fn.
[See
do not find
We
them here.11
11.]
urge
Defendant
amici curiae
that even if we do not
prohibitory
the Botta
rule,
adhere to
“per
we should hold
argument
is
right
available
matter of
rather,
but,
question
subject
entire
should be
to the discre
trial
tion of the
solution,
court. We believe this would be an undesirable
creating
problems
more
than
would
solve.
challenges
inevitable results would
peremptory
judges
they
the basis of whether or not
permit
were
argu
inclined to
basis,
proliferation
ment on a mathematical
appeals,
complex question
on the
of Avh ether the court’s discretion was
particular
in a
Existing
abused
case.
relating
rules
scope
the trial court’s control over the
argument
of counsel’s
protect
integrity
are sufficient to
jury’s
dеcision-
making
justification
role. There
holding
is no
governed
by special
standards not
applicable
types
argument.
to other
come, finally, to the
whether the trial
We
limiting
counsel’s
present
error
court’s
prejudice. (Cal.
Const.,
VI,
art.
§4%-)
case resulted
Plain
years
by trade,
at
carpenter
old
tiff, a
time of the
*14
hospitalized
days.
for 12
He was
He suffered
accident.
cuts
lodged
of wood
hands, a sliver
became
his head and
under his
chipped
mishap.
front teeth was
in
eyelid,
one of his
and
impaired.
his
became
He had
Subsequently,
vision
not worn
prior
.required
but
eyeglasses
to the accident
was
to obtain a
shortly thereafter,
a few
pаir
receiving
and
weeks after
glasses
change
he
pair
vision,
first
requiring
suffered another
his
prescription
eyeglasses.
a different
for his
any pains
did not have
Plaintiff
his back before the acci-
subsequent
pains
dent,
thereto he had
back
but
severe
which
thighs
required
his
to the knees.
doAAtn
He was
radiated
wear a back
to
been
brace and had
unable to work
his
trade as
carpenter
A
since the accident. medical doctor testified that
suffering
congenital
from a
defect
back
known as
although
and,
spondylolisthesis
there is some conflict in the
expert
issue,
testimony strongly
on the
evidence
indicates
may
holding
properly suggest
jury
11In
that
to the
that
plaintiff’s pain
suffering
"per
basis,
and
measured
he
on a
we
‘ ‘
’ ’
imply
approve
golden
argument,
do not
that we also
so-called
rule
jurors
place
plaintiff’s
to
which counsel asks the
themselves
they
"charge”
undergo
to award such
shoes and
would
equivalent pain
suffering.
and
symptomatic as a
of the acci-
became
result
condition
that this
operation costing $2,000
an
also testified that
The doctor
dent.
plaintiff’s
necessary
order to relieve
condition.
be
would
record,
compelled
of the entire
we are
an examination
After
reasonably probable that a result
it is
more
conclude
reaсhed if
plaintiff would have been
trial
favorable
argument
on the
not limited counsel’s
court had
suffering. (See
pain
People
damages for
and
v. Watson (1956)
243].)
818,
P.2d
46 Cal.2d
[299
appears in
prejudicial error
the determination of the
When
damages,
appeal
“It has been
that on
held
an
issue
’
‘
liability
overwhelming
as to
judgment where the evidence
damages.
limited to the issue of
a retrial
[Citations.]
Where, however,
liability
evidence
sharp
as to
is in
conflict,
awarded
and substantial
are so
compromise
grossly inadequate as to indicate a
on the issues of
damages,
the case
liability and
should be remanded for a
(Clifford
(1952)
of both issues.”
v. Ruoccо
retrial
39 Cal.2d
;
Leipert
327,
P.2d
see also
v.
(1952)
Honold
[246
651]
462,
324,
P.2d
TRAYNOR, judgment. C. J.I concur in the my opinion prejudicial In the trial court committed error in refusing plaintiff’s attorney allow state to the his monetary appropriate estimate of an pain award for suffering. must convert suffering Since into cents, permitted counsel should be any dollars to advance argument reasonable as to what decision its should be. Since there is no mathematical formula for conversion, how ever, should use such a formula is suspect, and an сomputed per should be at so much unit time is so mislead ing (See it should never be allowed. v. Los Seffert *15 Angeles Lines, Transit 498, 509, 56 Cal.2d 513-514 Cal. Rptr. 161, 337], dissenting 364 P.2d opinion.) thing It is one urge pain in view of all of the evidence and suffer- duration, specific range some sum or including its total ing urge quite use a It is another reasonable. sums is. per penny or penny second, a mill or or nickel such as formula per qr day. or per minute, $20 $100 or None of $10 dime or face, its for there is no appears unreasonable these formulas testing for their reasonableness. For experience in human basis however,, they yield suffering, pain ¿"year of light in the $315,360, of all $3,650 sums ranging grossly might appear to be particular eases of the evidence therefore, unrealistic to grossly It is excessive. inadequate or suffering by pain and the use of for appropriate award an seek any Only after counsel has deter so-called!.'per formula.. diem going, he is and- much
mined how
support
request.
ratio to
his
per
diem
can he select
ask for
adjusting
either
any
he wished
amount
He could arrive at
a measure or the amount
taken as
period of time
to.be
¿nd suffering
period.
It is no
surmised
reasoning may
in his
question-begging
answer
exposed
challenged by
equally
counterargument
leading
Truth
to a different result.
is not
formula
Active
(See
arguments
between
by sophistic
or clashes
them.
served
Angeles
Lines,
Cal.2d.498, 509, 514
Los
Transit
Seffert .
v
dissenting
337],
opinion.)
[