The multiplier method: scaling off your damages
The multiplier method is the industry's default approach. It takes your economic damages — medical bills and lost wages — and multiplies that total by a factor generally between 1.5 and 5, chosen based on injury severity, recovery time, and whether any permanent impairment is involved.
The per diem method: valuing each day
The per diem (Latin for "per day") method works differently. It assigns a specific dollar value to a single day of pain and suffering and multiplies that rate by the total number of days of documented recovery, tying the value directly to time rather than to the size of your medical bills.
A genuine rarity: no cap to check against, ever
In most states with a damages cap, the choice between these two methods matters most once the noneconomic estimate approaches the ceiling. New Hampshire removes that consideration entirely. The state Supreme Court struck down a medical malpractice damages cap in 1980 (Carson v. Maurer), a broader personal injury cap in 1991, and a third cap in 1999 — each time ruling the limit unconstitutional under the state's own equal protection guarantees. Whichever method produces the larger noneconomic figure, there's no statutory ceiling waiting to cut it down, for any type of personal injury claim.
So the choice comes down to which fits the facts
Without a cap in play, choosing between the multiplier and per diem methods in New Hampshire is purely a question of which better fits the specific facts of the case — a claim with a long, well-documented recovery period might favor the per diem approach, while a claim with substantial medical bills might favor the multiplier. Neither choice is constrained by a ceiling waiting at the end.
Neither is required by New Hampshire law
Both methods remain negotiating tools, not a formula New Hampshire courts are required to apply. A jury retains full discretion to award whatever amount it finds appropriate for noneconomic damages.