Section 17 General Rules

• Library: Damages 2012

Generally, the plaintiff is not required to introduce the evidence showing the present cash value of future lost earnings claimed. See Prince v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co.,229 S.W.2d 568, 576 (Mo. 1950).
In Anglim v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.,832 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Mo. banc 1992), the Court specifically rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs were required to produce evidence of the manner of computing present value. The Court relied on Blair v. St. Louis‑San Francisco Railway Co.,647 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. banc 1983), and Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.,707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1986), which implicitly hold that evidence regarding the manner of computing the present value of future wage loss is not an essential element of the plaintiff’s burden of proof. It appears that either the plaintiff or defendant may offer evidence of the manner of computing present value. SeeAnglim,832 S.W.2d at 308–09.

If the plaintiff utilizes an economist, the economist’s calculations must be reduced to present value. See H.H. Henry, Annotation, Admissibility of Testimony of Actuary or Mathematician as to Present Value of Loss or Impairment of Injured Person’s General Earning Capacity,79 A.L.R. 2d 275...