Okla. House Once Again Passes Civil Justice Legislation

May 1, 2006

  • May 1, 2006 at 3:09 am
    Ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is worth re-reading…
    Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole, said capping pain and suffering would hurt stay-at-home parents and homemakers who would not be able to prove actual damages, such as lost income, if seriously injured by someone else.

    \”Non-economic damage caps hurt the folks that don\’t have actual damages,\’\’ said Kiesel, a law school student.

    Um, seems to me the biggest hardship discussed is someone without damages…if they cannot prove damages, why should they receive pain/suffering????? Oh the humanity, I imagine it will hit the poor hardest if they can\’t prove they have any damage…perhaps we could just reform the court to have a civil trial lottery system. Ooops, that\’s what they\’re trying to end.

  • May 24, 2006 at 3:21 am
    Hugh M. Robert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So are you saying that one should only be able to collect for economic damages? If you are saying that, then you would be blocking justice from being obtained by the retired, stay at home mothers, children, and the poor. Are you saying that their injuries are less worth a working man? Are you saying the poor have no rights to the same justice a rich man has access to? If a child would be injured and would be blind and paralyzed for life, the most they could get under this plan would be $300k. I dont know a person out there that would give up those things for 100 times more than that– the non-economic damages merely helps them deal with the damage and injury caused by someone else.

  • May 25, 2006 at 9:30 am
    ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    wah!!!!! grow up; what a sad excuse; you hide behind phony compassion to find a way to keep robbing from others. $50 billion woudldn\’t bring back a 3 year olds lost eyesight, but if you\’re not smart enough to attach economic damages to that, then maybe you should look for another line of work.

  • May 25, 2006 at 10:01 am
    Hugh M. Robert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe you should examine exactly what economic damages are before showing your ignorance. Economic damages can only be measured by actual damages, not projections. I.E. if you make $40K per year, an economist would be able to estimate how long you would be able to work, factor in inflation, minus your expenses of living and the remainder would be what your family would be expected to see as if you were alive–those are called economic damages. You cant do that for a child or woman who doesnt have a salary by being a stay at home mother. You obviously dont understand the legal system or have any compassion towards treating all humans equal as you feel the poor deserve nothing. There is nothing phony about compassion towards human beings. This isnt about robbing from people, it is for compensating for injuries, many of which are done knowingly or ignorantly which if you dont hold people responsible for their actions as we do in the criminal system, what is the motivation to prevent error and injury?

  • May 25, 2006 at 10:22 am
    ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Economic damages refers to compensation for objectively verifiable monetary losses such as past and FUTURE medical expenses, loss of past and FUTURE earnings, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, loss of employment or business opportunities.

    Non-economic damages refers to compensation for subjective, non-monetary losses such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life.

  • May 25, 2006 at 10:27 am
    Hugh M. Robert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Glad to know you can operate google and look up the definitions. Are you saying that you are willing to give up your eyesight or the ability to walk for only a percentage of what you would make had you been able to continue working? What about your children if you have any, what would have happened if some drunk driver while on the clock for a corporation were to hit your child and leave them paralyzed- you think the most your child should receive is $300K for their inability to enjoy the rest of their life? This isnt about robbery, it is about compensation for wrong or injuries done.

  • May 25, 2006 at 10:58 am
    ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    didn\’t see you refute the premise. No reason you cannot prove a child lost earning capacity.

    If you can recall, I earlier mentioned no value can bring back lost eyesight; perhaps that wasn\’t clear enought. Take care Robert. We agree to disagree.

  • May 25, 2006 at 2:34 am
    Hugh M. Robert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The problem is that the courts dont recognize it that way- the lost eyesight or earning potential cannot be measured because they are not currently earning. The reason is that it is too vague, the child could have been a rocket scientist or a janitor which have vastly different economic impacts. Therefore, the courts recognize these kinds of losses as non-economic damages. I think there are probably some kinds of economist that could formulate it that way but the courts do not. I agree no value could bring back the life, the ability to walk, or eyesight, however, if you ask those people if they would rather have a pile of money or their sight or ability to walk, they would choose the later. The only thing the civil justice system can do is try to provide them with something to compensate them for their losses, for either a life of darkness, paralysis, or even without a father/mother.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*