Laskowski v. Wallis
Citation | 58 Del. 98,205 A.2d 825 |
Parties | , 58 Del. 98 Joseph LASKOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant, v. Margaret F. WALLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Decision Date | 18 December 1964 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
F. Alton Tybout, Wilmington, for defendant-appellant.
David Snellenburg, II, of Killoran & VanBrunt, Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellee.
WOLCOTT and CAREY, Justices, and MARVEL, Vice Chancellor, sitting.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court upon a jury verdict for $7500 for injuries received by the plaintiff in an automobile accident on September 27th, 1963. Liability was admitted. The initial question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence justified an instruction permitting the jury to include in its award a sum for permanent injury.
At the trial on February 19th, 1964, the permanent injury claimed was the presence of a small scar on plaintiff's forehead, resulting from a cut. The only testimony about the scar came from the attending surgeon. We quote his testimony regarding it in full:
'
'
On cross-examination, there was this question and answer:
.
There was no re-direct examination of the physician.
Over timely objection by defendant, the Court instructed the jury that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for 'any permanent injury relating or resulting from the accident'. Defendant here challenges the propriety of this instruction on the ground that it is not justified by the evidence.
Although the plaintiff was not required to show with absolute certainty the permanent nature of her injury, the burden was upon her to produce some credible evidence showing reasonable probability thereof. As this Court stated in Henne v. Balick, 1 Storey 369, 146 A.2d 394:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guinan v. A.I. Dupont Hosp. for Children, 08-0228.
...unknown" is not sufficient. (Grossfeld Dep. at 4) A truly unknown future is not a legally cognizable injury. See Laskowski v. Wallis, 58 Del. 98, 101, 205 A.2d 825 (Del.1964) ("`The law does not permit a recovery of damages which is merely speculative or conjectural. As a general rule, it r......
-
Kronenberg v. Katz
...might have been accepted by the plaintiffs involves pure speculation unsupported by any record evidence. 84. Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del.1964) (quoting Henne v. Balick, 146 A.2d 394, 396 85. Katz Dep. at 745-66. Among other things, Katz refused to reveal polling numbers take......
-
Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-14-JFB-SRF
...a fact dispute regarding damages, they must "be actual and cannot be 'merely speculative or conjectural.'" Id. (quoting Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del. 1964)); see also Johnson v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2014 WL 2708300, at *1 (D. Del. June 16, 2014) (plaintiff must prove "br......
-
MD Helicopters Inc. v. Boeing Co.
...damages that are 'merely speculative or conjectural.'" Kronenberg v. Katz, 872 A.2d 568, 609 (Del. Ch. 2004) (quoting Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del. 1964)). However, Boeing is "not required to establish a specific dollar amount of damages" to survive summary judgment. In re Ce......