Citation

Smith SV. J. Forensic Econ. 1990; 3(3): 41-49.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1990, National Association of Forensic Economics)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

There is considerable controversy in the legal press regarding the use of so-called hedonic damages testimonyt to value intangible losses in a litigation setting. The controversy involves the term applied to such damages, their measurement, and their admissibility. Companion papers to this article address the issue of measurement. The underlying measurement techniques have been well-accepted in the field of economics for over two decades, despite an occasional critic now and then. The purpose of this paper is to present what is known about the state of the art regarding the use of such testimony in court by expert witnesses. This paper discusses the origin of the testimony, the frameworkfo r its use in a courtroom, the scope of application, and the admissibility.

Some economists and attorneys have lamented my initial use of the term "hedonic damages" to refer to the value of the enjoyment of life beyond the humanc apital value. In a cogent discussion of the subject of life valuation Miller (1989) argues for an alternative: wholel ife costs versus non-monetaryli fe costs. I concur with his arguments, yet my original term has been widely adopted and seems likely to stick. Thus, I continue with its use here.