## Facts

- Carl Beagle was a passenger in a car driven by Kenneth Vasold when the car went over an embankment while rounding a curve.
- Vasold died from the दुर्घ; Beagle, Elizabeth Vasold, and another occupant were injured.
- Beagle sued and sought general damages of $61,025.18 plus special damages (including medical expenses and lost earnings).
- Before closing argument, the trial court barred Beagle’s counsel from stating to the jury the dollar value of the action in a lump sum and from suggesting pain-and-suffering damages on a per diem (time-segment) basis, reasoning such figures were “not evidence.”
- Counsel argued only medical expenses, loss of earnings, injury descriptions, and general statements about entitlement to pain-and-suffering damages.
- Medical expenses incurred before trial were $1,377.48; Beagle claimed total special damages of $21,502.48.
- The jury awarded $1,719.48, about $342 more than the pretrial medical expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting plaintiff’s counsel from arguing the amount of general damages sought, either as a lump sum or as a per diem (time-segment) figure.
2. If error, whether the restriction was prejudicial and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held the trial court erred by barring counsel from stating suggested amounts for general damages in closing argument, whether as a lump sum or per diem.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial given the disparity between claimed damages and the minimal verdict that effectively failed to compensate for pain and suffering.
- Judgment was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- In personal injury actions, counsel may suggest specific dollar amounts for general damages, including pain and suffering, in closing argument.
- Such suggested figures may be presented either as a lump-sum request or as a per diem/time-segment computation.
- These suggestions are argument, not evidence, and do not invade the jury’s role when the jury is instructed that argument is not evidence and the jury remains free to accept or reject counsel’s proposal.
- Concerns about excessive awards are addressed through post-trial controls (e.g., new trial or remittitur), not by prohibiting damages argument.

## Conclusion

California permits plaintiffs to argue specific amounts for pain-and-suffering damages in either lump-sum or per diem form; a categorical ban on such argument is reversible error when it likely contributes to an inadequate damages award.


Beagle v. Vasold, 417 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1966)