examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United Specialty Insurance Company v. LIC Contracting, Inc. one of the most persistent and troublesome problems in the administration of justice in our civil jury system is the unpredictable relationship between different juries' awards, particularly for intangibles such as pain and suffering.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Complaint of Moran Towing Corp. Would any of us willingly endure the pain and suffering experienced by the decedent in return for a substantial monetary payment?”); Gibbs v. United States, 599 F.2d 36, 39 (2d Cir.1979) (“measuring pain and suffering in dollars is inescapably subjective”); Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 64 F.3d 781, 788 (2d Cir.1995), rev’d on other grounds, (“While the law seeks by reasonable compensation to make a plaintiff whole, we must recognize that compensation for suffering can be accomplished only in a symbolic and arbitrary fashion.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harding v. Onibokun Second, there is no rational scale that justifies the award of any particular amount, as opposed to some very different amount, in compensation for a particular quantum of pain” (Consorti v Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 64 F3d 781, 788 [1995]).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp. Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, 64 F.3d 781, 791-92 (2nd Cir.1995).

examined Cited as authority (rule) William Gasperini v. The Center for Humanities, Inc., Doing Business as Guidance Associates (3×) also: Cited "see" Consorti, 64 F.3d at 789-90, 791-92 ; see also Matthews v. CTI Container Transp.