The same principles applicable to catastrophe cases are, in my opinion, applicable to noncastrophe cases. The effect of inflation on the value of money is the same whether one is considering the upper limit of non-pecuniary damages in catastrophe cases or considering an appropriate range of damages for ordinary nonpecuniary loss. In this case, the trial judge did nothing more than recognize that inflationary trends exist. It is for the trial judge to instruct the jury on an appropriate range of damages. Being cognizant of the effects of inflation and taking it into account in the determination of an appropriate range of nonpecuniary damages is not an award of pretrial interest as contemplated by Rieger v. Burgess, supra. That ground of appeal fails.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.