Argument against a cap on reward of damages
The tort system was created to summarize compensation methods and amounts for wrongs and harms committed by one party to another. Tort law, in essence, aims to offer the damaged party a chance to restore their state back to its point of origin; in other words, the point of tort law is to place a financial obligation on an individual who causes harm to another party. The decision to put a cap on damages is not just harmful, but also makes it very difficult to seek lawful judgment in the court of law. Here is few issues show ultimately why putting a cap on damages is not a desirable measure in resolving problems contained within the tort law. First of the issues is the prevention to receive an adequate reward in damages which will compensate for the losses due to existing cap on damages. In some of the cases when plaintiffs seek relief for their damages does not come close to the numbers which will cover their already occurred sufferings and due to existence of the cap will not adequately compensate for the continues physical problems as well as emotional distress and suffering. As an example can be used the case appeared before the judge in a Pennsylvania court. The case, Ashley Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District et al, was tried before a jury and the Hon. Robert Mellon, with MSZLM attorneys David Cohen, Esquire and Kristy Fischer, Esquire representing the defendant Pennsburg School District. The Plaintiff was a high school student struck by a runaway bus while waiting outside the Pennsburg High School suffered injuries by a “run away” bus that resulted in the amputation of one of her legs. Claims were brought against the School District for negligence in the operation of the bus, as well as the bus manufacturer for products liability. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $14.036 million, representing $338,580 in past medical expenses; $2,597,682 for future medical expenses and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document