In this personal injury trial, the plaintiffs sought to have the jury quantify damages for past attendant care and housekeeping.
The court denied this request, ruling that such claims were barred due to the male plaintiff's prior settlement of his Family Law Act claim for services provided to his wife, which would result in impermissible double recovery.
Additionally, the court found there was insufficient evidentiary foundation to put these specific questions to the jury, as the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate evidence regarding the hours of services rendered by third parties or the value of non-monetary compensation, and the proposed methodology of valuing damages based on need rather than services actually received was incorrect in law.
