Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2004 Term __________ No. 31703 __________ TIFINIE M. COOK, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. FAITH WOODS COOK, Defendant Below, Appellee __________________________________________________ Certified Question from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County The Honorable Irene C. Berger, Judge Civil Action No. 00-C-3159 CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED __________________________________________________ Submitted: September 8, 2004 Filed: December 1, 2004 Carte P. Goodwin Goodwin & Goodwin, LLP Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellant David A. Mohler Atkinson, Mohler & Polak Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Appellee

FILED December 1, 2004
released at 3:00 p.m.
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

JUSTICE ALBRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE DAVIS concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. "The appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syl. Pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996).

2. "Future damages are those sums awarded to an injured party for, among other things: (1) Residuals or future effects of an injury which have reduced the capability of an individual to function as a whole man; (2) future pain and suffering; (3) loss or impairment of earning capacity; and (4) future medical expenses." Syl. Pt. 10, Jordan v. Bero, 158 W.Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974).

3. "To form a legal basis for recovery of future permanent consequences of the negligent infliction of a personal injury, it must appear with reasonable certainty that such consequences will result from the injury; contingent or merely possible future injurious effects are too remote and speculative to support a lawful recovery." Syl. Pt. 7, Jordan v. Bero, 158 W.Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974).

i

4. "The permanency or future effect of any injury must be proven with reasonable certainty in order to permit a jury to award an injured party future damages." Syl. Pt. 9, Jordan v. Bero, 158 W.Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974).

5. The test governing future damages as set forth in syllabus points seven and nine of Jordan v. Bero, 158 W.Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974), requires that either the negligently inflicted injury or its direct consequences be proven by a reasonable degree of certainty to have a lasting, permanent future effect.

6. "Where an injury is of such a character as to be obvious, the effects of which are reasonably common knowledge, it is competent to prove future damages either by lay testimony from the injured party or others who have viewed his injuries, or by expert testimony, or from both lay and expert testimony, so long as the proof adduced thereby is to a degree of reasonable certainty. But where the injury is obscure, that is, the effects of which are not readily ascertainable, demonstrable or subject of common knowledge, mere subjective testimony of the injured party or other lay witnesses does not provide sufficient proof; medical or other expert opinion testimony is required to establish the future effects of an obscure injury to a degree of reasonable certainty." Syl. Pt. 11, Jordan v. Bero, 158 W.Va. 28, 210 S.E.2d 618 (1974).

ii

Albright, Justice: This case involves a certified question from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, presented to this Court pursuant to West Virginia Code

Download 31703.pdf

West Virginia Law