## Facts

- Lucy Mercado brought a negligence action on behalf of her minor son, Brian, against taxi driver Salim Ahmed and Checker Taxi Company, Ahmed’s former employer.
- In a museum parking lot crosswalk, six-year-old Brian left his mother’s side, entered the crosswalk between rows of parked cars, and was struck by Ahmed’s taxi, which threw him several feet.
- Brian was examined at a hospital for several hours and released the same day; records indicated he did not lose consciousness, reported no pain, and showed no objective signs of head injury.
- Evidence at trial showed Brian had significant physical, developmental, and intellectual problems that predated the accident.
- Mercado sought substantial present and future damages, including “loss of enjoyment of life” damages over Brian’s lifetime.
- Mercado offered an economist to quantify “loss of enjoyment of life” using “value of life” research derived from population-wide spending to reduce risk.
- After voir dire, the district court excluded the economist’s testimony, finding the methodology lacked sufficient specialized grounding and professional consensus.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on damages based on claims that the jury’s damages verdict was inconsistent or inadequate.
2. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in excluding the economist’s expert testimony quantifying “loss of enjoyment of life” using “value of life” studies.
3. Whether other damages-related evidentiary rulings amounted to an abuse of discretion warranting reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment and the denial of Mercado’s post-trial motions.
- The court held the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion because the verdict had a reasonable basis in the record.
- The court upheld exclusion of the economist’s hedonic-damages testimony because the method lacked an accepted professional standard and rested largely on analyses of non-expert behavior rather than specialized expertise.
- The court rejected challenges to other evidentiary rulings, finding no reversible error affecting a substantial right.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed under federal law and reversed only in exceptional circumstances showing a clear abuse of discretion.
- A jury’s damages verdict will be sustained if a reasonable basis in the record supports it; damages evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the award stands unless there is no rational connection between the evidence and the amount.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must rest on the type of evidence and methodology that a reasonable expert in the field would rely upon; lack of professional consensus and unreliable methods support exclusion.
- Evidentiary rulings are generally committed to the trial judge’s discretion; reversal requires both error and prejudice affecting a substantial right.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a limited damages award where the record supported a finding that many claimed long-term impairments were not attributable to the accident and affirmed exclusion of hedonic-damages expert testimony that lacked accepted methodological support under Rule 702.


Mercado v. Ahmed, 974 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1992)