Non-economic damages caps
Part of the common law series |
Tort law |
---|
(Outline) |
Trespass to the person |
Property torts |
Dignitary torts |
Negligent torts |
Principles of negligence |
Strict and absolute liability |
Nuisance |
Economic torts |
|
Defences |
Liability |
Remedies |
Other topics in tort law |
|
By jurisdiction |
Other common law areas |
|
Non-economic damages caps are tort reforms to limit (i.e., "cap") damages in lawsuits for subjective, non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life.[1][2] This is opposed to economic damages, which encompasses pecuniary harms such as medical bills, lost wages, lost future income, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, and loss of employment or business opportunities.[2][1] Non-economic damages should not be confused with punitive or exemplary damages, which are awarded purely to penalise defendants and do not aim to compensate either pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.[1]
Non-economic damages caps are intended to reduce the ability of courts and, in the few jurisdictions which continue to maintain
Medical malpractice caps
Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation imposing caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits. In America, former President George W. Bush proposed a nationwide $250,000 cap in medical malpractice cases.[6]
Impact on healthcare costs
In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practising
Although proponents of damages caps in medical malpractice cases argue that the caps reduce malpractice insurance premiums for doctors,[10] despite a considerable amount of research on the subject the data in support of that argument is not compelling.[11] Within the United States, the impact of damages caps on the number of malpractice claims paid out by insurance companies varies by state and, in many states, reviews of malpractice premiums following the implementation of damages caps showed that the caps had no effect on premiums.[12]
Personal injury caps
In a personal injury lawsuit in common law jurisdictions, the two basic forms of compensatory damages that may be awarded are economic damages, compensation for the injured person's past and future financial costs and losses, and non-economic damages, compensation for the pain and suffering which results from an injury. As many jurisdictions lack adequate approaches to assessing the worth of unpaid labour or harm to minors and retirees who do not work, non-economic damages are often used as a practical way to ensure that such individuals receive compensation comparable to that received by working adults.[13]
Nevertheless, it is difficult for courts to assign a dollar value to these losses, which are thus arbitrary in nature. Because of the emotionally charged environment of personal injury trials, some awards will inevitably be unreasonable.
Opponents of tort reform contend that courts should assess damages on a case-by-case basis, that non-economic damages caps risk creating moral hazard, and that non-economic damages caps themselves may be arbitrary or produce unjust results if applied rigidly and without exception.[17]
Alternatives
In New Zealand, personal injury and medical malpractice have been eliminated from the tort system entirely and replaced by a system of no-fault insurance. The Accident Compensation Corporation is responsible for providing compensation for injuries in New Zealand. Due to the scheme's no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury may only sue an at-fault party for
Non-economic damages caps in American states
Overall, non-economic damages throughout the United States cover pain, suffering, and other nonpecuniary injuries, and in medical malpractice cases many states have imposed caps that range from $250,000 to $750,000 or more.[19] Damage caps have various purposes; for instance, they can discourage malicious lawsuits and prevent the costs of transacting business from being overly inflated, but have also been criticized as unjust.[20] Many American jurisdictions with non-economic damage caps have defined non-economic damages by statute.
While opponents of caps on damages in America argue that limiting total damages that jurors may award violate the right to a
Roughly half of U.S. states have imposed damages caps in medical malpractice litigation. Eleven states impose damages caps for all general tort and personal injury cases.[26]
California
In California, non-economic damages awarded in medical malpractice actions are capped at $250,000. Non-economic damages are meant "to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience,
Illinois
The
In the 2010 case Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Section 2-1706.5 of Public Act 94-677, which placed caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions, violated the separation of powers clause in the Illinois Constitution and was therefore facially invalid. Additionally, because Public Act 94-677 contains an inseverability provision, the entire Act was held void and invalid in its entirety.[29]
North Carolina
North Carolina has statutorily capped damages from nuisance claims to the value of the plaintiff's property. The law, which overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass in 2017, was criticized in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence, which resulted in significant nuisance litigation against regional hog-farming conglomerate Smithfield Foods due to the failure of many hog-waste lagoons.[30]
Maryland
In Maryland, non-economic damages are capped at $800,000. In personal injury cases, non-economic damages are defined as "pain, suffering, inconvenience,
Michigan
Michigan normally has a cap of $280,000 for "noneconomic loss," which is defined as "damages or loss due to pain, suffering, inconvenience,
West Virginia
In West Virginia, non-economic damages are capped at $500,000. Non-economic damages are "(1)
Wisconsin
In 2005, a Wisconsin court ruled that a $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases violates the state's
In Wisconsin, non-economic damages for medical malpractice are capped at $750,000. Non-economic damages mean "moneys intended to compensate for pain and suffering; humiliation; embarrassment; worry; mental distress; noneconomic effects of disability including loss of enjoyment of the normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or physical health, well-being or bodily functions; loss of consortium, society and companionship; or loss of love and affection."[35]
References
- ^ a b c "Ending the Confusion: Economic, Non-Economic, and Punitive Damages". American College of Surgeons. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
- ^ a b c "The Current State of State Damage Caps". 7 December 2017.
- ^ a b Wagner, Ronald E. "Commentary for Caps on Non-Economic Damages." J. Med. & L. 1 (1997): 109.
- ^ "Congressional Budget Office (January 8, 2004) "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice"". Cbo.gov. 2004-01-08. Retrieved 2012-06-28.
- ^ a b c d Defensive Medicine Among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment (abstract), Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005;293:2609-2617, "[1]"
- ^ "Bush outlines medical liability reform". CNN. 16 January 2003. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- PMID 26299026. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- PMID 20143176.
- ^ "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. 8 January 2004. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
- PMID 25339633.
- ISBN 978-1-78100-617-7. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ "'Caps' Do Not Lower Insurance Premiums for Doctors" (PDF). Center for Justice & Democracy. New York Law School. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ See, e.g., "Andler v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., 670 F. 3d 717 (6th Cir. 2012)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ Studdert, D.M.; Kachalia, A.; Saloman, J.A.; Mello, M.M. (2011). "Rationalizing noneconomic damages: a health-utilities approach" (PDF). Law and Contemporary Problems. 74 (3): 57–101. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ "Merck & Co., Inc. v. Ernst, 296 SW 3d 81 - Tex: Court of Appeals 2009". Google Scholar. 4 June 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
- ^ Hensler, Deborah R. (Winter 2008). "Jurors in the Material World: Putting Tort Verdicts in Their Social Context". Roger Williams University Law Review. 13 (1): 8. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ Richards, R.J. (2012). "Capping Non-Economic Medical Malpractice Damages: How the Florida Supreme Court Should Decide the Issue" (PDF). Stetson Law Review. 42: 113. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ see, Donselaar v Donselaar [1982] 1 NZLR 97, confirmed by Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732.
- ^ Morgenstern, Michael (9 September 2015). "Medical Malpractice Damages Caps: A State By State Comparison". The Expert Institute. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
- ^ Andrews, Michelle (28 June 2017). "This GOP Health Bill Proposes New Limits To Medical Malpractice Awards". NPR. Kaiser Health News. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
- ^ Leonard W. Schroeter. "The Jurisprudence of Access to Justice: From Magna Carta to Romer v. Evans via Marbury v. Madison". Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
- École Normale Supérieure. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 May 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
- ^ "'Judiciary', Singapore - A Country Study".
- ^ Jearey, J. (1961). Trial by Jury and Trial with the Aid of Assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories: II. Journal of African Law, 5(1), 36-47. doi:10.1017/S0021855300002941
- ^ George P. Landow. "Lee Kuan Yew's Opposition to Trial by Jury".
- ^ "Fact Sheet: Caps On Compensatory Damages: A State Law Summary". Centerjd.org. New York Law School. 22 June 2017. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 3333.2(a)
- ^ "Best v. Taylor Mach. Works 689 NE 2d 1057, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (1997)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ "Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Statutory Cap on Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Actions". The National Law Review. Troutman Sanders LLP. 2010-02-16. Retrieved 2012-01-09.
- ^ Buford, Talia (November 23, 2018). "Even after floods and dead pigs, the reckoning of NC hog lagoons is still elusive". The News & Observer. ProPublica. Archived from the original on November 23, 2018. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
- ^ Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108
- ^ a b Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.1483
- ^ W. Va. Code Ann. § 55-7B-8
- ^ a b "Ferdon ex rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 284 Wis.2d 573, 701 N.W.2d 440 (2005)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
- ^ Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.55