For those in favor of tort reform I have a few questions...?

Each of your hypothetical "cases" makes the assumption that "Johnny" is the "victim of negligence". In reality medical malpractice is rarely adjudged -- but is often prosecuted as it is lucrative to do so. Most hope for a "settlement" by making the cost of defense higher than the cost of settling.

It's a sad truth about the US, but the litigious nature of this society has gotten out of hand and is the MAIN contributor to out of control medical costs. Both defensive medicine and high malpractice insurance rates are the DIRECT result of these oppressive lawsuits.

Tort reform is a must.

I understand what you are trying to say here and quite frankly, I never thought of it like that.

Ok, lets pair them off. The ones that died are one catagory as that is DEATH. And the second ones are the ones that can no longer work, but salaries are quite different. The reason I did that is because I think comparing damages for someone that is unable to work but alive is quite different than someone who is dead, gone forever. That is my starting logic.

The first group, the ones that died, both were killed by medical negligence but both have drastically different salaries. If you pay the one with the higher salary more damages, you are basically saying he was more valuable of a human being. Realistically, we know different, but we are speaking legally and that is supposed to be where everyone is equal. Quite different set of standards. And with that in mind, they should get equal damages.

Now the two that are unable to work for the rest of their lives, basically the same logic applies. They are both injured and both unable to work. They too should receive the same amount as they both were injured. And yes, this is where it would affect the one that was more drastically different. But if would be about the injury and not the amount of money they make that is so drastically different.

Further, I think the ones that died should recieve more than the ones injured but unable to work. Death is very drastic and permanent, at least the other are able to continue living.

This is just my opinion. Because hey, look what we got now...the one with the better attorney gets a better settlement and when it is all done and said, the fella that gets more money because of the better attorney, pays a higher price for the attorney and basically breaks close to the fella that hires a competent, but not super lawyer. The lawyers are the only ones making the money, so tort reform will affect attorneys drastically also.

Your entire question is intellectually dishonest. It is based on a false premise.

The Cap referred to would be on awards of damages for non economic losses only. Awards of damages for loss of wages, medi.cal bills, etc. would not be affected by this change in the law. In each of the examples you state the award would reflect the lost wages from the time of the accident until age 65 and any medical bills or other economic losses sustained by the survivors.

The cap would be on damages for pain and suffering or loss of potential

other than economic.

The preponderance of the monies awarded in casesa such as the examples which you pose are for revenge on the perpetrater of the accident or negligence which caused the loss. A man who dies at age 30 might represent a loss of $2,000,000 ( 60K / year for 35 years)

but many juries would add another $10,000,000 or more to punish the perpetrater. This is the amount which would be capped.

BTW- the family of the deceased would receive social security surviver benefits until the children are 21.

Not if done smartly... in no case does anyone "deserve" 100Million dollars, especially since much of it goes to the attorneys. Tort reform would address that problem too. If real medical costs for the incident were covered indefinitely, and a limit set on "pain and suffering" that would go a long way toward reducing the costs. In the case of death it would be relatively easy to come up with a formula for support of those left behind.

I believe in the legal system awarding legitimate claims accordingly , but the issue for me are all of the ridiculous claims that are awarded and rewarded that drive up the costs.

If you cut the wrong arm off you should be held accountable ,

if the pt ignores suggestions and then has repercussions then no case.

A person who can sue me becuse I did no,t according to them , ask if they want to be transported by ambulance even though you are there treating them appropriately and they directly say they do not want any further care and do not want to go to the hospital , but then a week later sues because you did not ask if he wanted to be transported by ambulance should not be entertained.

Compensatory damages and punitive damages are two different things. I don't believe compensatory damages should be capped, but should be calcualted fairly and honestly. Punitive damages need to be done away with altogether. The don't punish anybody but the consumer. No doctor pays for punitive damages, his insurance does. To cover this, they raise rates that are passed to the consumer (you and me). The doctor is not punished in any way by punitive damages, and we need to eliminate them.

lawyer get more while the client get the stick

tort reform put caps on what a lawyer make off the injured

Come to me,

all you who labor

and are burdened,

and I will give you rest.