When assessing future economic loss, a trial judge must make proper allowance in a balanced way for both positive vicissitudes (such as the possibility of higher earnings in alternative employment) and negative vicissitudes (such as the risk of future employment difficulty due to injury). A hypothetical question about whether a plaintiff would have changed careers should not be decided on an all-or-nothing basis; the possibility should be assessed as a contingency. A significant disproportion between past economic loss and future economic loss may itself indicate error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.