of life, we have made clear that the damages to a particular plaintiff in a personal injury action should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Kinnard v. Martin, 223 So.2d 300, 302 (Miss.1969); Mobile & Ohio R.R. v. Carpenter, 104 Miss. 706, 61 So. 693 (1913); Southern R.R. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374 (1866). We allowed recovery for all damages including those for partial loss of enjoyment of life in W.J. Runyon & Son, Inc. v. Davis, 605 So.2d 38, 50 (Miss.1992). This Court has also recognized damages for the loss of enjoyment of life in a number of other personal injury cases. See Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So.2d 1149, 1163 (Miss.1992) (recognized loss of enjoyment of life as a factor in determining jury award); General Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So.2d 310, 315 (Miss.1994) (<HOLDING>); Atwood v. Lever, 274 So.2d 146, 149
holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding award that included damages for loss of enjoyment of life not excessive holding that claimants may be entitled to damages for loss of use and enjoyment in addition to returned rents and profits holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that loss of quiet enjoyment is not a sufficient plus