An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's preference for one body of expert medical evidence over another where the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, unless the reasoning is shown to be wrong by incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony. In assessing future care costs for profoundly disabled plaintiffs, a trial judge is entitled to award one-to-one home care rather than institutional care where the evidence supports that institutional care is impracticable given the plaintiff's singular disabilities. The standard for indemnity costs following refusal of a Calderbank offer should not be set as high as 'plainly unreasonable'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 88 later cases that cite this judgment.
14 of the 88 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.