Cole v. Champion

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “simply that there must be ‘some level of awareness’ in order for plaintiff to recover” for all aspects of nonpecuniary loss, including pain and suffering
• surveying authorities and holding that loss of enjoyment of life is a permissible factor in assessing pain and suffering, but no purpose would be served by having the jury make separate awards
• surveying authorities and holding that loss of enjoyment of life is a permissible factor in assessing pain and suffering, but no purpose would be served by having the jury make separate awards
• vacating award because jury erroneously instructed loss of enjoyment of life did not require consciousness
• vacating award because jury erroneously instructed loss of enjoyment of life did not require consciousness
• explaining our indulgence in the legal fiction that money can compensate a victim for injury even though “[w]e have no hope of evaluating what has been lost”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).