Pain and Suffering - What's it worth?

[Motokid]

How many times have you heard something like this with regards to the settlement of a lawsuit?

The plaintiff is awarded:

$250,000 in lost wages
$125,000 to cover legal fees and court costs
$400,000 to cover medical expenses

and 5 MILLION DOLLARS for PAIN & SUFFERING !!!!!!

How exactly does one measure the worth of pain and suffering?

If I am sad, and have lost sleep at nights for a few months on end, and I'm highly embarrased to be seen in the grocery store, or at my kids karate studio what should I expect in compensation for that? Couple hundred thou, or maybe a few million????

Suppose I'm wrongly accused of being a drug dealer because some neighbor has a grudge against me. I am now the scurge of the neighborhood and parents won't let their kids play with my kids. I lose my job. The stress of all this causes problems in my marriage. Is that worth multi-millions if it turns out I'm 100% innocent of all charges?

If I voluntarily have a risky operation, that my doctor warns me does not have a very high rate of success, and because of this operation I loose the ability to perform my husbandly function for my wife, is that worth 5 million dollars?

How do the numbers work for something that's totally subjective? What exactly qualifies as pain and suffering, and are the payouts justified?

Is my pain more painful than yours, therefore I get a few hundred G's more than you? But wait, you've got 3 more kids than I do so the suffering on your part is an equalizer so we both get the same amount?????

Should some rich, hollywood star get $10 million for pain and suffering because some super-market rag said she was a frat house super-whore in college?

I find it all very confusing, and a disturbing trend.

 

[novella]

Pain and suffering awards have become a sort of 'lost cost' calculation rather than addressing the simple concepts of physical and emotional pain.

For instance, if a model is slashed on the face, she will get more than an ordinary-looking clerk slashed on the face because her face is considered a more valuable asset that she's lost the use of.

One situation in which this became painfully clear were the 9/11 settlements to families who lost relatives in the twin towers. The stockbrokers' families got millions, while the dishwashers and mail clerks got a few tens of thousand. Just deciding such cases under ordinary circumstances is terribly difficult, but when you see how income potential and pre-existing wealth and financial commitments are factored in, it's really disturbing. Like, it was assumed that the stockbrokers' kids would need money for college, but that the maintenance workers kids wouldn't have the same levels of expenses. That seemed to me crooked, unfair, and really reflecting the attitudes of corporate American in general. Their mortgages were taken into account, as well as their living expenses and salaries. So the deal was, if you had less you got less. Valuing human life strictly in terms of your economic status.

If people who decide such awards really only looked at emotional pain and suffering, those awards would have been much more egalitarian.

On the other hand, I don't think the government should intervene by capping such awards, or at least they should set the caps very very high, because those suits that award for pain and suffering are one of the only deterents to corporations riding the little guy. One of the only ways the people at large can stick it to The Man.

 

[Motokid]

"One of the only ways the people at large can stick it to The Man."

So the lady who lied about biting into the finger at Wendy's was trying to stick it to the man. If she had played her cards a bit smarter she might have walked away with millions. It would have been fraud, but it would have been millions.

How much pain and suffering is experienced by biting into a severed finger in a bowl of chili? What's the appropriate dollar figure?

edit: and don't forget who ends up paying for all the lawsuits and outrageous settlements...through increased costs of doing business that get passed on to consumers by raising the prices of the goods we buy....

 

[novella]

"One of the only ways the people at large can stick it to The Man."

So the lady who lied about biting into the finger at Wendy's was trying to stick it to the man. If she had played her cards a bit smarter she might have walked away with millions. It would have been fraud, but it would have been millions.

How much pain and suffering is experienced by biting into a severed finger in a bowl of chili? What's the appropriate dollar figure?

From what I've read about these awards in general, the plaintiff has to gain the sympathy of the jury and show some kind of suffering and loss. There's no official calculus. I know if I had adjudicated in that case, I would not have much sympathy for that particular person with the finger in the chili. Anyway, you're talking about a case of fraud. There are thousands of legitimate cases out there, from real medical malpractice to people being mobbed out of their jobs to physical injury or death from drunk drivers. Those cases, IMO, deserve more than the strict monetary cost incurred to the victim.

 

[Motokid]

Don't you think that knowing that the "pain and suffering" part of the settlement is where all the really big cash comes from has the adverse effect of getting people to really blow such things out of proportion?

Sure, a family loses a mother or father to a drunk driver there should be some serious compensation. I'm not going to argue that.

But what about the liable cases where a person claims mental anguish due to a tabloid story in The Globe or something along those lines.

 

[novella]

Don't you think that knowing that the "pain and suffering" part of the settlement is where all the really big cash comes from has the adverse effect of getting people to really blow such things out of proportion?

Sure, a family loses a mother or father to a drunk driver there should be some serious compensation. I'm not going to argue that.

But what about the liable cases where a person claims mental anguish due to a tabloid story in The Globe or something along those lines.

Well, like I said earlier, it's now calculated as a 'lost cost' amount of money. So, for instance, if you rely on a reputation for professional integrity (as politicians do--haha), then you might be awarded more than Joe Blogs postal worker who was slandered by the same paper.

It's certainly not fair. It should perhaps not be called 'pain and suffering' anymore, particularly when you are talking about some rich privileged guy who lost a little business opportunity. But a father of two who pulls in 500K and can't work anymore will always get more than the father of two who makes 70K.

I think that until you see the particulars of a case--or until something bad like this happens to you--it's impossible to say what is fair and what is over the top.

A little off-topic, I think where civil suits go far wrong is not in these awards, but in the way the system allows a plaintiff to sue anyone and everyone, regardless of true culpability. That kind of stuff has put small aircraft manufacturers out of business in the US. There was a guy who removed the pilot's seat, installed some kind of camera equipment there, piloted the plane from the rear passenger seat (I think this was a Cessna 172), and then crashed before take off on the runway because he couldn't see where he was going. His family sued the aircraft company and won millions and scared the shit out of all aircraft manufacturers.

 

[Kookamoor]

Novella - in regard to the 9/11 compensations, were those payments made for 'pain and suffering' or for lost wages? If the latter case, the discrepancy makes sense. Although one cannot assume that a dishwasher would have continued to be such and earn such a wage nor to assume that a stockbroker will keep his job and his earning wage, one must assume the principle of continuity - that is, that the current wage they were earning would be maintained until logical retirement.

Compensation in any other form whereby there is a discrepancy between the rich and poor for 'pain and suffering' makes no sense. No matter what the children might do, Daddy would only have received so much money in payment for his job.

 

[novella]

Novella - in regard to the 9/11 compensations, were those payments made for 'pain and suffering' or for lost wages?
.

It's actually for both. The Fund is for economic and noneconomic losses, including emotional pain and suffering. The Victim's Comp Fund was set up to avoid lawsuits against the Twin Towers, the gov't, or anyone else. You can't claim funds and then sue, but the awards are supposed to replace anything that might be gained in a suit. It's supposed to be a no-fault alternative to litigation. A lot of those who can claim are preferring instead to sue, partly because they think the pain and suffering component is inadequate.

 

[Jenem]

i'm actually going through such a case right now (my husband was injured), and we're at the point in the legal process where we need to assess how much compensation we feel we deserve. the amount will consist of medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. we have no plans to allot an excessive amount for pain and suffering however, we don't plan to accept a lesser amount just because we are in the middle wage-earning bracket. my husband has always enjoyed a very active personal life. the negative impact his injury has had on our lives (and quality of life) is enormous. i think it's fair to say that people consider their personal lives more important (valuable) than their career lives (at least, we do) and so the losses suffered should weigh more heavily. it's going to be very hard for us to come up with a number, especially since we know whatever we decide will be haggled down.

 

[Motokid]

hey Jenem, always good to hear from you, and with a hot new avatar too.

Sorry to hear that you are going through something so difficult. I hope you don't take anything I've said in this thread personally, or think i'm a completely insensative ass (see that other thread for that ).

I know that there are always people who do not abuse the system, and most of those cases the media never reports on. I was listening to a radio talk show and they were discussing a few cases where it seemed really obvious that the people involved were doing their damn'dest to rape the system for every penny. As usual I can only react on the information I hear. I know I don't have all of it.

I think I know you well enough (or as well as I can from what you allow here on TBF) to believe you are not thinking I'm a douche-bag for anything I've said in this thread. Certainly you may form that opinion from my other threads.....

any way...sorry to hear about your situation and I hope that everything works out in you and your husband's best interest.

 

[Jenem]

thanks Moto- I've been trying to drop in lately when i can. glad you like my avatar- it's the 'do i'd get if it wouldn't cost me my job

no worries, i don't think your posts are directed at situations like mine. i totally agree that cases get out of hand and many people exploit the justice system outrageously. i just wanted to mention that one's personal life can be valued higher than one's potential for lost wages. no "what a douche-bag" thoughts coming from me. and thanks for your concern, it's hard going up against "the man"