In Beagle v. Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 172, the California Supreme Court established that one way for a jury to calculate an award of damages for pain and suffering is to assess an amount per day. "Under some circumstances, the concept of pain and suffering may become more meaningful when it is measured in short periods of time than over a span of many years, perhaps into infinity. The 'worth' of pain over a period of decades is often more difficult to grasp as a concept of reality than is the same experience limited to a day, a week or a month." (Beagle, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 181.) Beagle allowed plaintiffs' attorneys to make a "per diem" argument in support of a total award for pain and suffering. (Id. at p. 175.) The court also stated, "In holding that counsel may properly suggest to the jury that plaintiff's pain and suffering be measured on a 'per diem' basis, we do not imply that we also approve the so-called 'golden rule' argument, by which counsel asks the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff's shoes and to award such damages as they would 'charge' to undergo equivalent pain and suffering." (Id. at p. 182, fn. 11.) The Court held that "the trial court erred in prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from stating in argument to the jury the amount of general damages claimed by plaintiff, either in terms of a total sum or of a sum for a time segment." (Id. at p. 170.) An attorney's argument that his or her "client's damages for pain and suffering may be measured in terms of a stated number of dollars for specific periods of time" is called a "'per diem'" argument. (Id. at p. 173.) In approving the use of the per diem argument, the Beagle court also stated "in holding that counsel may properly suggest to the jury that plaintiff's pain and suffering be measured on a 'per diem' basis, we do not imply that we also approve the so-called 'golden rule' argument, by which counsel asks the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff's shoes and to award such damages as they would 'charge' to undergo equivalent pain and suffering." (Id. at p. 182, fn. 11.) The Supreme Court, in allowing a per diem pain and suffering argument, commented: "One of the most difficult tasks imposed upon a jury in deciding a case involving personal injuries is to determine the amount of money the plaintiff is to be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. No method is available to the jury by which it can objectively evaluate such damages, and no witness may express his subjective opinion on the matter. In a very real sense, the jury is asked to evaluate in terms of money a detriment for which monetary compensation cannot be ascertained with any demonstrable accuracy. ... 'Translating pain and anguish into dollars can, at best, be only an arbitrary allowance, and not a process of measurement, and consequently the judge can, in his instructions, give the jury no standard to go by; he can only tell them to allow such amount as in their discretion they may consider reasonable. ... The chief reliance for reaching reasonable results in attempting to value suffering in terms of money must be the restraint and common sense of the jury. ...' " (Id. at p. 172.)