Flannery v. United States
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
297 S.E.2d 433 (1982)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Michael Flannery (plaintiff) was 22 years old when an accident left him semicomatose. Flannery was not likely to improve and had a life expectancy of 30 years if he received good nursing care. Flannery sued the United States (defendant). The United States argued that the law does not permit double recovery for the same damages. Following a bench trial, the court held that it was speculative whether Flannery could experience any pain or suffering, or pleasure, but that it was clear that Flannery was wholly deprived of the capacity to enjoy life. The court further held that Flannery was not sentient, and that therefore pain and suffering were not capable of proof. However, that fact established Flannery’s right to recover for his nonsentient condition, for his loss of the ability to enjoy life. The court awarded Flannery damages for hospital, medical, and nursing expenses incurred prior to trial; future nursing expenses based on a 30-year life expectancy; impairment of earning capacity, including both wages and fringe benefits; and loss of ability to enjoy life. The total damage award was $2.2 million. The court did not award any amount for pain and suffering nor for permanent disability. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether a plaintiff in a personal-injury action who was left permanently semicomatose is entitled to recover for the impairment of his capacity to enjoy life.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.