Lynwоod Cathey, then basketball coach at University of Arkansas at Monticello, was injured when his automobile was struck by a large metal door, which came off a truck ownеd by Singer Company and driven by Walter Coleman. Cathey filed suit against Coleman and Singer seeking to recover for personal injuries and property damage. Before trial, Coleman and Singer admitted liability for compensatory damages and appellee’s claim for exemplary damages was withdrawn. Appellants assert five points for reversal of the judgment against them. We find merit in two of them and reverse.
Appellee alleged that he had suffered severe injuries to his face, head and eyes оf a permanent nature. No specific allegation was made as to loss of future earnings or earning capacity. Cathey’s principal injury was to his eyes. He was mildly nearsighted in each eye before the injury. The condition was correctable by either contact lenses or glasses. He had worn contact lenses becаuse they made a better correction. He also said that he used contact lenses because he could more effectively carry on his coaching activities than when wearing glasses. According to Cathey, the basketball coach at a small college has no full-time assistant, so he has to get out on the floor “wherе it is,” and “mix it up” with the kids. He said that, in doing this, glasses are always in the way and are frequently knocked off. In Cathey’s opinion, his inability to wear contact lenses would not affect his ability tо get a job, but it might affect his ability to keep one. He lost no pay but there was testimony that he was unable to work as effectively as before. He was handicapрed in viewing films, which he said was an essential part of his job, and in recruiting athletes, which he described as the life blood of a basketball program in a small college. He sаid that he was unable to take his usual two-week vacation during the summer following his injúry. At the time of the trial, nearly three years after his injury, he was living in Little Rock and working for an insurance company. His employment as a coach was terminated two years after his injury. At the time of the injury, he was earning $13,500 per year. There was no evidence that he was еarning any less at the time of the trial. Cathey testified that he was 42 years of age and anticipated being able to coach for another 15 years. He said that he wоuld accept a good high school coaching job and that, with his experience, he should get a salary between $14,000 and $15,000 per year.
The trial judge, in instructing the jury on the еlements of damages in the form of AMI, Civil, 2201, included both AMI, Civil, 2206, the present value of any earnings reasonably certain to be lost in the future, and AMI, Civil, 2207, the present value of any loss of аbility to earn in the future. The sufficiency of appellants’ objection to this phase of the instruction is questioned, but we find it sufficient to raise the question appellants arguе here, i.e., that both of these elements of damage should not have been included. Appellants’ attorney contended that there was no substantial evidence to support an award for either, but, in any event, one or the other, but not both were permissible. This is the argument appellants make here, and we find the objection sufficiеnt. We also find the objection appropriate. The note on use following each in AMI, Civil, states that it should not be used when the other is given. In spite of the fact that one might suffer loss of future income without having lost earning capacity or loss of earning capacity without having lost future income,
1
it is obvious that when both elements are includеd in an instruction to the jury, there is a real danger of a double recovery. Stein, Damages & Recovery, p. 95, § 58. As actually worded, the instruction given allowed recovery fоr the present value of any earnings reasonably certain to be lost in the future and the present value of any loss of ability to earn in the future. As given, the danger of dupliсation of damages was very real when applied to the facts of this case. See 22 Am. Jur. 2d 132, Damages, § 90; Singles v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
We cannot agree with appellants, hоwever, that there was no substantial evidence to support an award for either element. Without elaborating further on the testimony, there was, to say the least, evidence that Cathey, who testified that he went to college to learn to be a coach, was unable to coach successfully as a result of his eye injury. In Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Gilbert,
In estimating damage resulting from loss or impairment of earning capacity, “the reasonable and dependable probabilities, looking through all that may happen and for all the years for which the computation is to be made, and viewed according to the general experiences and observations of life, аre the elements which are to guide to a fair and acceptable result.” Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. McCormick,175 Miss. 337 ,166 So. 534 , 536. *****
If the injury is permanent, proof of specific pecuniary loss is not indisрensable to recovery. It is to be determined by the application of the common knowledge and experience of the jurors to the facts and circumstances of the case. Gretton v. Duncan,
Appellants also contend, correctly, that there was error in the trial court’s including AMI 2203 in the instruction covering the еlements of damages recoverable, which permitted the jury to evaluate the extent of them on the basis of the aggravation of a condition that already еxisted and predisposed Cathey to a greater extent than another person. The only evidence of an existing condition was that Cathey was nearsighted. We do nоt see how this condition predisposed Cathey to injury to a greater extent than another person. Although appellee has a scar on the cornea of at least one eye as a result of his injury, there is no indication that his nearsightedness was aggravated by this injury. The nearsightedness did not predispose Cathey, or make him more susceptible, to his injury to a greater extent than another person.
Appellants also contend that there was no evidence under which the jury could have found that Cathey was reasonably certain to experience pain and suffering in the future. Cathey testified that he was still unable to wear contact lenses without pain. There wаs no evidence of pain or suffering except when he was wearing contact lenses. The only medical testimony offered cast considerable doubt about thе likelihood of future pain attributable to the injury. In view of the fact that, on retrial, there may be other evidence on the subject, we find it unnecessary to pass on this contention.
It is also unnecessary that we pass on appellants’ contention that there was error in denying their request for mistrial, even though we see no prejudice in еvidence tending to show admission of liability when there had been an admission in open court. The first reference to an insurance check appears to have been a spontaneous reply by a witness and not a deliberate attempt to inject the “insurance issue,” since the witness had been cautioned by the examiner nоt to state the source of the payment. Furthermore, at that time the reference could have been to Cathey’s insurance carrier. A great deal of aрpellants’ argument on this point is devoted to their inability to negate the effect of unanticipated testimony, but they will be prepared to do so on retrial if the mattеr arises again. References to insurance should be avoided. It is highly unlikely that, on retrial, this matter will arise in the same manner, if at all, so we forego further discussion of it.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
We agree.
Notes
For an informative discussion of these elements of damage, see Woods, Earnings & Earning Capacity as Elements of Damage in Personal Injury Litigation, 18 Ark. Law Rev. 304.