## Facts

- Shereen Loth was driving northbound on Interstate 5 when a 24-wheel tractor-trailer owned by Truck-A-Way made an unsafe lane change and struck her car.
- Loth’s car spun, was pushed across multiple lanes, and was later struck by another vehicle before coming to rest on the shoulder.
- Loth suffered a concussion and later reported headaches, neck and back pain, and continuing pain with activity limitations.
- Loth alleged that before the collision she worked long hours and regularly exercised and played sports, but afterward she could not do waitress work or many physical activities without constant pain.
- Loth sued Truck-A-Way and the driver for personal injuries and related losses; defendants conceded liability, leaving damages as the only trial issue.
- Loth presented an economist who testified about “hedonic damages” by assigning a generalized monetary “value of life” and translating a percent loss of enjoyment into large dollar amounts.
- The jury awarded $890,000 in damages, substantially exceeding Loth’s claimed economic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether expert economic testimony assigning a generalized “value of life” and using it to quantify “hedonic damages” for loss of enjoyment of life is admissible in a California personal-injury case.
2. If inadmissible, whether admission of that testimony was prejudicial requiring a new trial limited to damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the hedonic-damages economic testimony was inadmissible as a matter of law.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial given the size and character of the verdict in a damages-only trial.
- The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Loss of enjoyment of life is compensable as part of general (non-economic) damages in California personal-injury actions.
- Expert testimony must assist the trier of fact; generalized “value of life” models and percentage-based formulas to compute loss of enjoyment do not provide case-specific assistance and risk substituting a formula for the jury’s judgment.
- Expert quantification that places an apparent objective price tag on life can improperly influence the jury and intrude on the jury’s role in setting general damages based on community experience.
- Erroneous admission of such testimony is reversible when there is a substantial likelihood it affected the damages award, especially where liability is conceded and general damages are the central dispute.

## Conclusion

The court rejected economist testimony that used a generalized “value of life” and a percentage-loss formula to calculate hedonic damages, holding it inadmissible and prejudicial, and ordered a new trial confined to damages.


Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp., 60 Cal. App. 4th 757, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571 (Ct. App. 1998)