I doubt if you have ever experienced the greed of insurance companies bent on taking everyone’s premiums and never paying those who are injured by their insured. The tactics they employ include practices every bit as dishonest as any employed by John Edwards or any other plaintiff’s lawyer. What is the point of a 350K cap on pain and suffering for someone who, through the fault of another has been forced to endure constant and unremitting pain for years and years that could have been avoided? Let us say a person injured and put in a wheel chair with brain damage, for example, has medicals already of 300K and future care costs of 2 million and lost income of 600K. Why not let the jury decide what the other damages are? If there is no fault there are no damages; if there is fault in such a case the award should reflect the magnitude of the culpability as the jury sees it, not a government fiat. Juries are not so easily fooled as you seem to think.
Right, but I thought that the judge ruled on how juries can be subjective. In a case like you described, even a zillion dollars wouldn't bring back the person's legs or life. I don't have a problem with the injured person getting paid. I have a problem with the lawyer getting a third or half of the judgement. I really have a problem with lawyers collecting millions of dollars in fees and the plaintiffs getting a coupon or free rental from Netflix.
“What is the point of a 350K cap on pain and suffering for someone who, through the fault of another has been forced to endure constant and unremitting pain for years and years that could have been avoided?”
I thought “constant and unremitting pain” would be a permanent or lifetime condition covered by compensatory damages which could include open-ended monthly payments and medical care for life.
I found a couple of different takes on this issue if you get time:
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/arbino-v-johnson-johnson-ohio-tort.html