Read an interesting case today on the issue future damages. In Maddox v. Rozek, the First District Appellate Court of Illinois was faced with an issue involving future damages. Specifically, after a verdict for plaintiff in an auto case, the defense appealed, arguing that the jury should never have received an instruction on future pain and suffering because their was no expert[i.e. doctor]witness who testified that plaintiff would have problems in the future.
After surveying the law, the Court held that where future pain and suffering can be objectively determined from the nature of the injury, the jury may be instructed on future pain and suffering based solely on lay testimony. When future pain and suffering is not apparent based simply on the injury, or is subjective, the plaintiff is obligated to present expert testimony.
Bottom line? If your client doesn’t have a cringe-inducing injury[loss of an eye is an example cited by the Court] get an expert.