Cook v. Cook

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia answers a certified question concerning proof of future damages for lost income following a personal injury. The court holds that a permanent physical impairment is not required; instead, the lasting consequence of the negligent act must be established with reasonable certainty. The type of evidence required depends on the nature of the claimed consequence and need not always be medical evidence.

Holdings

1. A permanent physical impairment is not the only type of lasting consequence that will sustain an award of future damages. The Jordan v. Bero test requires that either the negligently inflicted injury or its direct consequences be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty to have a lasting, permanent future effect.
2. The evidence needed to establish a lasting or permanent consequence with reasonable certainty is determined by the nature of the consequence and does not necessarily have to be medical evidence. For obvious injuries, lay testimony may suffice; for obscure injuries, expert testimony is required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jordan v. Bero requires a personal injury plaintiff to demonstrate through medical evidence the permanent deterioration of her physical condition to claim lost future wages where the loss depends on proving a specific employment opportunity was permanently lost due to the defendant's tortious conduct.

Disposition

reversed