The Injury Lawyer Directory Blog

In 1857, when the Oregon constitution was written, the law claimed that the only way you could recover damages from an assailant was if they injured you, not if they killed you. So, if someone got into a fight over something, it was better to kill the opponent so the attacker didn't have to pay damages. In this way, as the murderer was sitting in prison or getting ready for the hangman's noose, at least he or she could rest assured they wouldn't also have to pay money to the dead person's family. I guess that would be adding insult to injury.

The Modern Day Equivalent

On February 22^nd, the Oregon Supreme Court used the law set down in 1857 to cap non-economic damages in a wrongful death case. They claim this is constitutional. A jury awarded a woman $1 million for the death of her daughter caused by medical negligence. Using the constitution, the Court cut those damages in half.

Those who have been clamoring for tort reform for several years will probably look at this case and cheer. It's a victory for them. They claim that limiting what people can recover in cases like this will hold down insurance rates. Yet, Washington, right across the river, has no wrongful death cap, but their insurance rates are similar to those in Oregon.

For anyone paying attention, this isn't the first time an argument like this has wound up in the news. The Bush Administration has been pushing tort reform for years. There are many different scenarios that are bandied about which might fall into this subject. And maybe there are reasons why insurance companies, hospitals, and others, believe caps are valid. But tell that to the family of those who have died. This gets into the realm of deciding your loved one is only worth a certain amount, and no more. Is this going to become the law of the land, written down into state constitutions so that in another 150 years, lawyers, judges, and the average Joe will know just how much everyone is worth? Perhaps.

Until then, if you, or a loved one, believe you are entitled to damages due to a wrongful death, please contact an experienced injury lawyer.

Labels: medical malpractice, noneconomic damages, wrongful death

The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a law limiting non-economic damages in tort lawsuits, including pain, suffering, loss of consortium, etc. The 2004 law, known as Senate Bill 80, does not limit easily calculated damages, such as lost wages or medical costs, but it does limit the noneconomic portions of damages to $250,000 or three times the economic damages (up to $500,000), whichever is greater. The law also limits punitive damages for dangerous drugs and hazardous products to only twice the actual economic damages, which is a boon for pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers, who regularly factor catastrophic injury or death to a few individuals against millions or billions of dollars worth of sales. The limitation of punitive damages means that companies will never have to worry about the ramifications of maliciously concealing or manipulating data to put an unsafe product on the market as long as the wrongful deaths caused are quick and cheap, no matter how painful or tragic.

The specific case that initiated the ruling was a multi-state mass tort action against Johnson and Johnson, over the Ortho Evra birth control patch, which led to fatal and potentially fatal blood clots in thousands of women.

The limitations on the awards in each case make it more imperative than ever that each person who receives an injury as a result of a defective product or drug comes forward to punish the manufacturer and show them they cannot profit off the misery of others. If you or someone you love has suffered as a result of the negligence or wanton misconduct of a manufacturer, contact product liability lawyer Robert W. Kerpsack at Robert W. Kerpsack Co, LPA, to put your lawsuit in motion.

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, defective product, noneconomic damages, Ohio, personal injury, wrongful death