This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and two others were in a car driven by Kenneth (D). The car went over an embankment and P was seriously injured. Kenneth (D) was killed. P sued D's representative and others. In the complaint, P prayed for $61,025.18 in general damages, as well as compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings, and costs of suit. The trial court informed P's attorney in chambers that he would not be permitted to mention to the jury 'the value of his action in dollars' in a lump sum or as to 'any per diem damages such as so many dollars per day, or so many dollars per month' because 'itis not evidence.' P confined his arguments on the question of damages to the amount of past and anticipated medical expenses and loss of earnings, a description of P's injuries, and general statements to the effect that P was entitled to recover for past and future pain and suffering resulting from the accident. P's medical expenses up to the time of trial were $1,377.48, and his total claim for special damages was $21,502.48. The jury's verdict was for $1,719.48. D appealed. P contends that the trial court's action in restricting the argument of counsel on the issue of general damages was erroneous and that the error was prejudicial.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.