Question by kelsey5: government homework help?
Tort Reform. Torts are civil lawsuits brought to obtain recourse, damages. Our civil court system is set up to compensate people when they are wronged. Examples are civil matters that fall within the Tort category are medical malpractice, personal injury (auto accidents…), and general negligence claims. Read the fact scenario below, assuming the state you live in has tort reform, limiting the amount an individual may receive for non-economic damages (e.g. for damages other than wage loss) to no more than $ 500,000.
You are a concert pianist, touring the nation playing with big city orchestras, symphonies and other venues earning a very good, almost seven figure salary. You are injured when a Greyhound bus, full of passengers crosses the center line, sideswiping your car. It appears that the driver fell asleep after driving a 16 hour shift. Thankfully no one on the bus was serious injured, but you suffered a grievous injury to your left arm and hand, leaving some fingers amputated and paralysis in you left arm. You are unable to play the piano or earn a living as you once did. After months of intensive therapy you are able to dress yourself, feed and bathe yourself and are looking for work. You sue the bus company. Negligence is admitted, but what are your damages? Economic damages are generally calculated on the loss of income + pain and suffering and non-economic damages? Tort reform advocates argue that non-economic damages (punitive damages for grievous negligence, pain and suffering and the like) should be capped at $ 500,000. The two are added together by a jury (remember the negligence has been admitted by the Bus Company). At 28 your career making nearly 1 million/year could have spanned 30-40 years or more. You require assistance around your house to do some household chores that you are no longer able to do (or pay to have done).
What is this injury worth? Why?
Suppose the same set of facts, only instead of a concert pianist, the person is a stay at home mother of three children under the age of five. She gave up her decent paying job to raise her children. Her husband is the sole breadwinner. Instead of losing the ability to use one arm and hand, she lost both and has no use of her arms or hands. She has no income. What is her injury worth? Why? Should it be less than the fact scenario above? Why?
Would it change the situation of the driver had been drinking? Why? What if the driver had been drinking, and the manager new about it before he left?
I don’t understand how you figure out what the injuries are worth?
Best answer:
Answer by Bryan H
I’m not a lawyer, but here is how I see it…
The key to figuring this out is where it says, “Economic damages are generally calculated on the loss of income + pain and suffering and non-economic damages”
This means you have to figure two things, then add them together:
How much is the loss of income? (yearly earnings x the number of years left to earn)
How much is the “pain and suffering and non-economic damages? (capped at $ 500k according to the tort reform info.)
Once you have these two figures, you need to add the two amounts to get the value of the injuries.
So…
First Scenario:
Earnings Lost = $ 1 million per year, multiplied by 40 years of lost earnings = $ 40 million
Pain & Suffering = this is up to the decision of the jury, but these are life-changing injuries so I say pain & suffering is worth the maximum allowed = $ 500k
Add the two together and the injury in the first scenario = $ 40,500,000
Second Scenario:
Lost Earnings: You could either say zero because she is not working… or you could assume that she would have gone back to work after her children grow, so that she would have earned a “decent pay” (Maybe $ 40,000???) for the remainder of her career. We don’t know how much she earned, how old she is, etc, so for this problem I would stick with lost earnings of $ 0.
Pain & Suffering: would have to be the max allowable of $ 500,000.
Total value of the injury: $ 500,000
Why? Her injury is worth less under the stated tort reform law because she did not suffer lost income. Should it be less? That is up to you!!
Would it change if… drinking? Yes!
Why? Read back to the very first paragraph… The $ 500k limitation for Tort damages is for “general negligence” IF the driver had been drinking and the manager knew about it, this would change it from “general negligence” to “gross negligence” because they would have made a conscious and voluntary decision to disregard using reasonable care. In that case, the $ 500k limitation would not apply, and Greyhound bus would be liable for Lost Income + huge punitive damages over $ 500k.
Add your own answer in the comments!