ABSTRACT
Plaintiff’s attorneys define themselves by their ability to ask the right questions, not only of their opposition, but also of themselves and their own clients. In the catastrophic case, the plaintiff’s attorney understands that a myriad of questions may and should be asked about the future. Yet that same attorney is buffeted by thoughts that no real answers can be given. He or she fears that all attempts to probe the future or assist the trier of fact in probing the future will slide into that murky realm of the possible and away from the safe ground of the probable, where he or she must remain to prove a case. The attorney also knows that the more specific the questions become, the more difficult they are to answer. The safe thing to do then seems to be to generalize about future care and future needs and thus avoid these pitfalls.
