Caps on Pain and Suffering Damages is Bad for America
Posted by
Dan FrithSeptember 11, 2008 3:35 PMOkay...okay, I am a trial lawyer and the vast majority of my cases are based upon a contingency fee. In other words, I am paid a percentage of what my firm recovers for the injured plaintiff. But hear me out on why caps or limits on the recovery for pain and suffering (or noneconomic damages) are bad for America...or at least many Americans.
A brief explanation about damages: Negligently injured plaintiffs (via automobile accidents, medical malpractice, nursing home abuse) suffer two types of damages: Economic - for lost earnings and medical bills; and Noneconomic - for pain and suffering. Caps on pain-and-suffering damages don't have much impact on plaintiffs whose damages are primarily economic. But for low-earning or elderly plaintiffs and their families, noneconomic damages are their only hope in court.
What are the economic damages when a 4 year old is killed in an automobile accident? What are economic damages when a stay at home mom dies during the birth of her child due to medical negligence? What are the economic damages when a 85 year old nursing home resident dies from malnutrition, dehydration, and decubitus uclers? The answer...almost nothing!
Should our judicial system not recognize the hurt and "pain and suffering" these losses have brought to the victim's family? If states unfairly limit the amount of recovery for noneconomic damages then lawyers will not take these cases and the responsible parties will not be held accountable.
During this Presidential election many of my friends talk about how appropriate it is to limit a plaintiff's recovery of noneconomic damages in personal injury actions. How they want "tort reform." I bet if it were their grandmother... their wife... their 4 year old son....they would feel the " pain and suffering" and maybe their eyes would be a little more open!