domefan said:
Thanks wetcoaster. Your expert input is educational and appreciated.
I'm really suprised at how low the Canadian top end $100,000 in 1978 $s is for pain and suffering. I must be watching too much American news and tv programming. It seems discriminatory to be a Canadian.
Do you think this figure should be revisited. You wouldn't be able to buy a standard Vancouver city lot (33x122) for under $400,000. You might be able to buy a small condo for $300,000. including taxes.
You have to realize that this is a cap on only one type of damages which are termed variously non-pecuniary damages, general damages or pain and suffering damages. The plaintif might still be able to receive millions of dollars in economic damages, including all of his proven medical expenses and lost wages as well as compensation for loss of future earning capacity. As I noted the cap is tied to inflation so today it has tripled in value from 1978 to $300,000.
Here is an explanation by former Chief Justice Brian Dickson who sat on the Trilogy cases for the rational for capping damages as well as the various types of damges that are awarded:
http://www.biblio.uottawa.ca/droit-law/dickson/bd-sp-disc/sp-05.html
In
Ernst v. Merck, a Texas Vioxx products liability case, the jury issued a verdict of $24 million in non-economic damages for a widow who had been married one year to a 59-year-old produce manager with arterosclerosis. This sort of award strains the bounds of rationality, particularly where the basis for an action is negligence as opposed to an intentional tort - punishment damages which is really what such an award represents in those circumstances does not make a lot of sense.
One change that makes sense is to me is to not have a cap on general damages for intentional civil wrongs (i.e. torts such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, defamation, slander, libel, misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, common law fraud and tortious interference with contractual or business relationships.
OTOH I would favour a continued cap on non-intentional torts such as negligence.
A number of US states (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin) have imposed a similar cap to Canada's for general damages. In some cases the caps have been found by state courts to be unconstitutional as an interference with the right to a jury trial under state constitutions.
In one of President Bush's main legal intiatives he has proposed a nationwide $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases.
And many states have also put a cap on punitive damages as well as aggravated damages whereas in Canada we do not have such limits.
Recently the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a $1 million punitive damage award against an insurance company in
Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co. in 2002.
As I understand it Moore has included a claim for punitive and aggravated damages along with a claim for negligent supervision and civil conspiracy as well as his claim for damages for assault,battery, medical costs and loss of income (past income and loss of future earning capacity in the amount of about $15 million.)