Good explanation in–of all places–Forbes on how caps on damages discriminate against retired and lower-earning individuals. Oregon legislators and voters are often asked to consider capping damages, and for that reason, this is a good read.

As the author explains, caps on damages typically limit non-economic damages.  Non-economic damages have been wrongfully labeled as “compensation for pain and suffering.” In fact, those damages address all forms of harms and losses bound up in the joys and pleasures inherent in life that can’t be measured by a simple paycheck or bill. So if you lose the loving relationship of your mother, that is a non-economic harm and loss. Same deal if you lose your ability to lift your child, taste food, see a sunset, or walk on the beach. Those profoud human joys are at the core of non-economic damages.

Caps often do not limit what are called economic damages, which address an injured person’s out-of-pocket losses. Miss a month of work because you got hit by a drunk driver and that loss of pay is an economic damage. So are the medical bills that you incurred.

So here’s the problem. Those who fare well in the legal system are only those who have large economic losses. If you lost 10 years of earnings from a doctor’s mistake or if you will need lifetime medical care, you will be able to recover full compensation. But if you were retired or under- or unemployed, you won’t. The capped claim system doles out justice based on wealth.  In that respect, it is fundamentally wrong.

David Sugerman

Tags: damage caps, discrimination, retired, sugerman