This Washington Post article discusses Rick Santorum's hypocritical legislative crusade for a $250K cap on medical malpractice awards despite the fact that he pursued twice that amount for his wife back in 2003.
Here's my take on a cap for non-economic damages: the first thing people should remember is that these are not punitive damages designed to punish the perpetrator, but rather damages set by juries as fair compensation for the damages done to the most important aspects of a person’s life. People would gladly give up compensation for their medical bills if they could regain mobility without pain and the pursuit of their own brand of happiness without the limitations of an injury.
One reason our law makes us liable to fairly compensate with money for the harm we do to others is that being responsible in that way acts as a deterrent to careless or reckless behavior.
Let’s consider the financial consequences for speeding under our current laws that increase the fine according to how excessive the speed is, and ask yourself two questions. First, do I believe that more drivers would speed on residential streets if there were no financial penalty at all for getting caught? And second, do I believe that number of very excessive speeders would increase if there were no increased penalty for them?
Arbitrarily limiting the amount to be paid as compensation for non-economic injuries is like removing the excess penalty for the big speeders; it will increase the odds that each of us will be badly hurt by a negligent driver speeding way over the posted limit.
No comments:
Post a Comment