§ 9-10-184.Limitations on counsel on arguing damages; remedial measures for violations; conduct of voir dire as to damages

This section addresses one of the most contested moments in a personal injury or wrongful death trial: what counsel can tell the jury a claim for pain and suffering is worth. It starts by defining the two categories at stake. Economic damages cover the pecuniary losses — medical bills, rehabilitation and therapy costs, lost wages and earning capacity, the value of services the injured or deceased person can no longer perform, and funeral or burial expenses. Noneconomic damages cover everything else tied to bodily injury or wrongful death — pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and, in a death case, the nonpecuniary elements of the full value of life.

The general rule keeps a dollar figure for noneconomic damages away from the jury for most of the trial. Counsel cannot argue the worth of those damages, or elicit testimony or make any reference to a specific amount or range, in front of the jury or a prospective juror — the statute says the measure of noneconomic damages is the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, not a number counsel supplies.

The exception opens only after the evidence closes. From that point on, counsel for each party may put a worth or monetary value on noneconomic damages, but only at that party’s own first opportunity to argue damages — plaintiff and defendant each get their own turn, not just whichever side happens to argue first — and the argument has to connect rationally to the evidence, with no reaching for objects or values that have nothing to do with the facts proved at trial. Counsel who gets both an opening and a concluding argument cannot save the dollar figure for the last word: they can argue a value in concluding only if they argued one in opening, and the number cannot change between the two.

Enforcement runs through the next Code section and through voir dire. If counsel crosses the line in front of the jury or prospective jurors, the court turns to the remedial measures and mistrial provisions of Code Section 9-10-185, or excuses the tainted prospective jurors. None of this stops attorneys from asking jurors during voir dire whether they could return a verdict of no damages, or one above some unspecified amount, as long as the evidence supports asking the question.