scar was of an objective nature, whereas plaintiff’s complaints of head, back, and shoulder pain were purely subjective
How later courts described this case
- scar was of an objective nature, whereas plaintiff’s complaints of head, back, and shoulder pain were purely subjective
- overruled in part, on other grounds, in Barretto v. Akau, 51 Haw. 383, 463 P.2d 917 (1969)
- overruled in part on other grounds, Barretto v. Akau, 51 Haw. 383, 393, 463 P.2d 917, 923 (1969)
- overruled in part, on other grounds, 51 Haw. 383 (1969)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Barretto v. Akau, 51 Haw. 383 (1969)
47 Haw. 408, 435 , 390 P.2d 740, 755 (1964) ("The use of mortality tables in personal injury actions is limited to injuries of a permanent character."), overruled on other grounds by Barretto v. Akau, 51 Haw. 383, 393 , 463 P.2d 917, 923
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION OF
MIZUHA, J.
I concur only in the result since I am in total disagreement with that portion of the opinion of the court which holds that the use of a mathematical or per diem formula in argument of counsel is improper. Since nothing could be added to the numerous opinions in other jurisdictions which are against the “Botta rule,” I deem it unnecessary to do more than state my conclusion.
I concur with Justice Lewis that Defendant’s Requested Instruction No. 25 was properly refused by the trial court since there was no evidence to show that plaintiff’s neck and shoulder pain would have been alleviated by further medical care.