Connection lost
Server error
Law School Case Briefs
Start by searching for a case name or citation above.
Discover a Random Brief
DIEMEL v. WEIRICH
Supreme Court of Wisconsin (1953) | 264 Wis. 265
TL;DR: A plaintiff testified about her ongoing pain but offered no medical expert testimony. The court ruled that damages for future pain and suffering cannot be awarded based solely on a plaintiff's subjective testimony; expert medical evidence is required to prevent jury speculation.
Legal Significance: Establishes the rule that recovery for future pain and suffering requires objective medical expert testimony when the injury is subjective, preventing juries from speculating on the duration of pain based solely on the plaintiff's claims.