Is ignorance really ever bliss?

The case involved a forecast of future medical expenses with an unknown life expectancy. The defense chose not to take the economist’s deposition and did not name an opposing economist to testify at trial. The plaintiff’s economist presented multiple damage calculations based upon differing life expectancies ranging from 6 years to 79 years with resulting damages ranging from $2 million to $63 million.

During cross examination, the defense chose to center on two themes: 1) damages if the life expectancy were only one year, and 2) the use of an annuity to replace the calculated present values. This allowed the plaintiff’s economist the opportunity to opine on the many uncertainties of the timing of expenses imposed upon the family, to which the cross-examining attorney had no response.

The jury awarded $30 million to the plaintiff. The defense attorney desperately needed assistance in handling the concepts of 1) expected values of future expenses, 2) the uncertainties of future expenses, and 3) the characteristics of an annuity. The defense attorney really did not want the answers to his questions.