Pain and suffering

[AENeuman]

Just got dismissed from jury duty over my problems with "pain and suffering." It was an asbestos case, swear to god that’s all the civil court does now. Anyways, in the jury box the lawyer for the plaintiff asked about my response in the questionnaire to how I feel about personal injury lawyers. I said they are mostly selfish and using money to punish or relieve pain is vulgar or at the very least absurd.
The lawyer kept asking about my statement and after about 5 objections he finally said, “it is absurd, but that is the system we live in.” To which I responded that I would have no problem making a company guilty of asbestos pay all the bills and even be forced to give money to research and prevention, but saying the horrible loss of my husband can be some what compensated if I can just go to Hawaii is a waste of my time.
My point is my very good friend who is also 31 is losing his battle with stomach cancer. Both of his parents died of cancer before he turned 25. He has had plenty of pain and suffering, but no one to sue. And even if he could the thought of putting a price on time lost is, like I said, vulgar.

[Draft Dodger]

I like how you stood up for what you believe in.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Alright, so if someone is killed by pure negligence, where there are no bills to pay and no research required for prevention (which even if there was be a small amount), then what would motivate an individual or company from consistently putting people in danger?

Your opinion is not big picture enough. It's an unfortunate circumstance that the possibility of a sizeable jury verdict is the ONLY thing preventing reckless and negligent behavior by some. That money is what protects the rest of us from being harmed in the future by such conduct. It's not so vulgar when you look at it that way.

Allowing someone to simply say "sorry" after hurting someone and go about their business injuring more people in the future doesn't seem to work.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Alright, so if someone is killed by pure negligence, where there are no bills to pay and no research required for prevention (which even if there was be a small amount), then what would motivate an individual or company from consistently putting people in danger?

The companies involved in this case were G/E and Viacom. If they are forced to pay wouldnt they just pass that fee on to their custumers? Is'nt that what the cig people do?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The companies involved in this case were G/E and Viacom. If they are forced to pay wouldnt they just pass that fee on to their custumers? Is'nt that what the cig people do?

One of those reasons health care is so expensive is because health care providers and insurance companies pass on medical malpractice costs to consumers.

[JPhillips]

SFLCat: No. Medical malpractice costs have very little to do with insurance rates.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The companies involved in this case were G/E and Viacom. If they are forced to pay wouldnt they just pass that fee on to their custumers? Is'nt that what the cig people do?

The point is that not all costs can be passed on to the consumer. As prices increase, demand decreases. The company's profits (and dividends and stock value) will take a hit. The people who own the company will lose money. The objective is to make the price increase necessary for the company to pass on costs high enough that their cost/benefit analysis will teach them that it would be more economically efficient to not incur that liability in the first place (i.e. to be more careful with customer safety). Punitive damages are intended to alter behavior, both on the part of the guilty party and other similarly situated companies.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

To add to that: Those big companies are already motivated to charge their customers as much as they can. Believe me, they are not cutting you any breaks right now just to be nice. Theoretically, price level is already at a point to maximize profit where the next dollar charged will result in enough decreased demand to reduce profits. So, if they try to pass on the cost of the damage award, it results in lower profits.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SFLCat: No. Medical malpractice costs have very little to do with insurance rates.

Absolutely correct. The biggest myth going, continually fostered by insurance companies and the medical community. Very, very, little effect. Insurance companies simply charge what people are willing to pay, that's it. Again, they are not cutting anyone any breaks.

[st.cronin]

I thought this thread would be about 19th century German philosophers.

[Buccaneer]

Nice post, bro, you have always been a quick thinker.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I thought this thread would be about 19th century German philosophers.

Just wait. He knows about them too.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Nice post, bro, you have always been a quick thinker.

To whom are you referring? Certainly not me I hope. I know nothing about German philosophers in any century -- well, perhaps I have heard of Karl Marx and Karl-Heinze Rumenigge.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Alright, so if someone is killed by pure negligence, where there are no bills to pay and no research required for prevention (which even if there was be a small amount), then what would motivate an individual or company from consistently putting people in danger?

Punitive damages. I believe the AENeuman was talking about "pain and suffering," which is compensatory.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, I was talking about pain and suffering damages. They have the same effect. They are still a disincentive to being careless or reckless (although they are theoretically calculated to compensate the victim as opposed to punishing the careless). Especially so for those states that do not allow punitive damages, like WA.