How to calculate pain and suffering damages in Arkansas

Direct answer

In Arkansas, you generally calculate “pain and suffering” damages by treating them as part of the total non-economic injury damages, then applying Arkansas’s comparative fault rule so the claimant’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122 (a fault-comparison statute, not a pain-and-suffering formula).

Because Arkansas does not provide a statute that assigns a fixed “multiplier” or “per-day” rate for pain and suffering, the usual approach is to:

• estimate the non-economic component (pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment, etc.), and
• apply fault allocation under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122 so the claimant recovers only their share.

What you need to know

You can use DocketMath to split the task into two parts: (1) estimate damage components and (2) apply Arkansas’s fault-based allocation so the output reflects what is recoverable.

1) Pain and suffering is treated as non-economic damages

In Arkansas personal injury and wrongful death contexts, “pain and suffering” typically falls within non-economic damages—meaning it’s not a bill you can total from invoices. Instead, you estimate it based on the facts of the injury and how it affected the claimant.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122 is not a worksheet for pain and suffering. Its purpose (in the cited portion) is to set the fault-comparison method that affects liability/recovery when fault is at issue.

2) Comparative fault reduces what the claimant can recover

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122(a) requires liability to be determined by comparing fault:

• the fault “chargeable to a claiming party,” and
• the fault chargeable to the party or parties from whom recovery is sought.

So even if a jury awards a pain-and-suffering figure, the recoverable amount is typically reduced to reflect the claimant’s allocated share of fault.

3) DocketMath’s “damages-allocation” workflow

Practically, you’ll do this in DocketMath:

• enter your estimated pain and suffering as a non-economic damage component, then
• run damages allocation with the fault percentages needed by Arkansas’s comparative fault approach.

Use the tool here: /tools/damages-allocation

Step-by-step

Follow this practical workflow using DocketMath and the comparative fault concept in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122.

Step 1: Build your pain-and-suffering estimate (non-economic total)

Start with a number you can support with evidence and narrative—without relying on a “statute multiplier” (because Arkansas’s cited statute doesn’t provide one).

Common ways to structure your estimate (for your own internal support) include:

• duration-based narrative: how long symptoms persisted
• severity-based narrative: intensity of pain, functional limitations, treatment burden
• impact-based narrative: effect on daily activities, sleep, work, and enjoyment of life

For DocketMath, you’ll typically enter a single non-economic total for pain and suffering (or, if the interface allows, sub-components that you sum into that total).

Step 2: Determine fault percentages for allocation

Next, identify fault percentages that fit the scenario you’re modeling.

You’ll need:

• Claimant fault %
• Other party / defendant fault % (one or more, depending on the case)

Make sure the allocations are consistent with how your worksheet/timeline treats total fault. In many workflows, the percentages across all parties are expected to total 100%.

Step 3: Open DocketMath’s damages allocation tool

Go to: /tools/damages-allocation

If you’re doing this outside the tool, you can mirror the logic conceptually, but the tool is designed to handle the allocation inputs and outputs.

Step 4: Enter inputs into DocketMath

A typical input set for pain-and-suffering allocation looks like:

• Damage component: Pain & Suffering = [your non-economic estimate]
• Fault allocation:

  • Claimant fault % = [number]
  • Defendant(s) fault % = [number(s)]

Also confirm any tool option that controls whether allocation reduces the claimant’s damages (most tools do, but always verify the setting labels so the output matches your intent).

Step 5: Review the output fields

After running the tool, record:

• Gross pain & suffering (the amount you entered)
• Recoverable pain & suffering (after comparative allocation)
• any intermediate breakdown fields (sometimes the tool attributes damages by party)

Step 6: Sanity-check the results

Before relying on the number:

• verify you did not accidentally swap claimant vs. defendant fault
• confirm the allocation direction makes sense (recoverable amount should generally decrease as claimant fault increases)
• if the tool shows separate party attributions, ensure they align with your intended scenario

Key statutes and citations

Arkansas comparative fault rule

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122(a) (fault comparison) provides, in relevant part:

“In all actions for damages for personal injuries or wrongful death or injury to property in which recovery is predicated upon fault, liability shall be determined by comparing the fault chargeable to a claiming party with the fault chargeable to the party or parties from whom the claiming party …”

Source (statutory text PDF):
https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FBureau%2Fpublications%2FArkansas+Code%2FTitle+16%2FSubtitle+5%2FChapter+64%2FSubchapter+1%2F16-64-122.pdf

Why this matters for pain and suffering

Even though § 16-64-122 doesn’t provide a pain-and-suffering formula, it affects the final recoverable amount because:

• pain and suffering is part of the damages in fault-based injury/wrongful death actions, and
• the claimant’s recovery is reduced based on comparative fault allocation.

General note: This article is for educational/calculation purposes and isn’t legal advice.

Common pitfalls

1. Using a pain-and-suffering “multiplier” but forgetting comparative fault

   • Arkansas’s cited statute is about comparing fault; your recoverable number should reflect that allocation.

2. Reversing claimant vs. defendant fault

   • A swapped percentage can swing recoverable pain and suffering dramatically.

3. Fault totals that don’t match your model convention

   • For example, entering multiple defendant fault % values that don’t sum consistently (or exceed 100%) can distort allocation results.

4. Mixing categories without consistent labeling

   • Keep “pain and suffering” as its own non-economic component in DocketMath so the allocation logic is applied to the correct category.

5. Assuming Arkansas has a statutory pain-and-suffering schedule

   • In the cited authority here, § 16-64-122 is the fault-comparison rule and does not set a statutory rate or schedule for pain and suffering.

Run the numbers

Use DocketMath’s damages-allocation tool to compute recoverable pain and suffering after comparative fault.

Here’s a plug-in style example of how the number changes when claimant fault changes:

How the number changes:

• If claimant fault increases from 30% → 50%, recoverable pain and suffering moves from:

  • $120,000 × 70% = $84,000
  • to $120,000 × 50% = $60,000

What to log for repeatable results

For each scenario you run in DocketMath, write down:

• the pain-and-suffering estimate used
• claimant fault %
• defendant fault % (and whether there are multiple defendants)
• the resulting recoverable pain-and-suffering output

That lets you compare scenarios (e.g., different fault assumptions) without losing your calculation trail.

Related reading

• How to calculate Damages Allocation in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Damages Allocation in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations
• Inputs you need for Damages Allocation in Philippines — Input checklist with sourcing guidance