Wage Loss and Inconvenience

Inconvenience Costs:
This theory makes intuitive sense and finds support in several cases. See, e.g., Shirley v. Smith, 933 P.2d 651 (Kan. 1997), citing Rieth-Reiley Constr. Co. v. McCarrell, 163 Ind. App. 613, 325 NE.2d 844 (1975); Kubista v. Romaine, 14 Wn. App. 58, 63, 538 P.2d 812 (1975), aff'd, 87 Wn. 2d 62, 549 P.2d 491 (1976). Inconvenience has also been mentioned by the courts as a valid basis for damages. See, e.g., Cole v. Schaub, 164 Wash. 162, 2 P.2d 669 (1931); Kane v. Nakamoto, 113 Wash. 476, 194 P. 381 (1920); Burke v. Seattle, 85 Wash. 445, 148 P. 574 (1915)."


Wage Loss & Taxation (Gross vs. Net)
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Marc L. Silverman <[email protected]> wrote:
List: wsajeagle Sent by: Marc L. Silverman
Search


Boy, do I ever apologize for what MUST be a dummmmmbbbbb question.  I’ve looked in the WPI and cannot find this instruction.  Not to wax Biblical, but “where is it written” that past income loss due to an injury is to be compensated by the trier of fact in GROSS wages, not net of taxes.  Obviously an insurance company, in the course of negotiating can offer what they choose, but if the adjustor is laboring under the impression that the plaintiff is only ENTITLED to net (of taxes) wages, what is the authority to disabuse her of that notion?  Thanks again.  marc


Take a look at Boeke v. I'ntl Paint Co., 27 Wn.App. 611, 620 P.2d 103 (1980)

There is also authority in a non-physical injury case of “gross up” additur to make up for taxes which must be paid.  Blaney v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No., 160, 151 Wash.2d 203, 87 P.3d 757 (Wash. 04/01/2004)