GRESHAM v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP, 3:09-cv-00034-RCJ-VPC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120216d08
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. This case arises out of a slip-and-fall incident at a truck wash. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Revised Proposed Judgment ("SRPJ"). ( See ECF No. 165). For the reasons given herein, the Court will solicit a third revised proposed judgment. Plaintiff won a verdict for $751,863.93 in past damages and $2,488,569.90 in future damages, with 10% contributory negligence. The SRPJ correctly calculates the subtotal as $2,916,390.42. However, the
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. This case arises out of a slip-and-fall incident at a truck wash. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Revised Proposed Judgment ("SRPJ"). ( See ECF No. 165). For the reasons given herein, the Court will solicit a third revised proposed judgment. Plaintiff won a verdict for $751,863.93 in past damages and $2,488,569.90 in future damages, with 10% contributory negligence. The SRPJ correctly calculates the subtotal as $2,916,390.42. However, the ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
This case arises out of a slip-and-fall incident at a truck wash. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Revised Proposed Judgment ("SRPJ"). (See ECF No. 165). For the reasons given herein, the Court will solicit a third revised proposed judgment.
Plaintiff won a verdict for $751,863.93 in past damages and $2,488,569.90 in future damages, with 10% contributory negligence. The SRPJ correctly calculates the subtotal as $2,916,390.42. However, the Court disagrees that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest. As to future damages, the jury was instructed to consider the present value of money in reaching its verdict. In light of this instruction, adding prejudgment interest to the future-damages portion of the verdict would be double-counting. As to past damages, none of the damages in this case represent compensation for out-of-pocket medical payments such that interest is necessary to make Plaintiff whole. Plaintiff shall submit a third revised proposed judgment consistent with this order.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Second Revised Proposed Judgment (ECF No. 165) is REJECTED, and Plaintiff shall submit a third revised proposed judgment within fourteen days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
