Vance’s testimony that “riding around and bouncing off an 8-foot wave” would aggravate Sardina’s back injury amply supports the Trial Division’s finding. 2 This is the critical distinction between the facts of this case and the facts of Star-Kist. In Star-Kist, we reversed the Trial Division’s finding of contributory negligence against a dockworker, holding that the Trial Division improperly imposed on the plaintiff a duty to anticipate dang hat in other contexts “the general rule is to award prejudgment interest.” See Interocean Ships, Inc. v. Samoa Gases, 26 A.S.R.2d. 28, 43 (Trial Div. 1994). 5 If prejudgment interest is awarded, it should apply only to the damages Sardina suffered prior to the judgment. See Borges v. Our Lady of the Sea Corp., 935 F.2d 436, 444-45 (2d Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). 6 We lack jurisdiction to consider the Trial
recognizing as separate from pain and suffering holding that the alleged inconsistency between the awarding of future medical expenses and the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering could be readily resolved and did not require a new trial recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that prejudgment interest may properly be added to damage awards for past lost wages medical expenses that have been incurred and past pain and suffering but not future loss of earnings future medical expenses andor future pain and suffering holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence