Obviously the Tribune editors were nowhere near Springfield last year if they believe the civil-justice restrictions passed in March 1995 were a “sober and judicious attempt to deal with a real problem” (“This judicial ruling resists logic,” Editorial, June 4.)
The legislature’s rationale for capping jury verdicts was “frivolous” lawsuits, but, to no one’s surprise, the caps do not apply to frivolous cases. Instead, caps only restrict recovery for the most severely injured victims.
As for “sober and judicious,” the bill was heard in committee and passed through the House within a 48-hour period, with most legislators seeing the thick and complex document just hours before the vote. The entire debacle was a pure and simple payment to the financiers of the new leadership in Springfield: big corporate interests, insurance companies and organized medicine.
For the editors to imply that non-economic damages are not really losses is a triumph of corporate public relations over common sense. Non-economic losses are real indeed: loss of mobility, fertility, horrendous pain and suffering, loss of loved ones, a mother’s care and nurture. Just because retirees, children or homemakers do not lose a day’s wages does not mean the impact of a severe injury is lessened. Pain may be subjective, but we all can imagine how much freedom from pain is worth. Or how much we would pay to regain the use of a now-paralyzed body.
Just because non-economic damages are more difficult to quantify does not mean they should be minimized. They act as a deterrent to negligent behavior. Undervaluing non-economic damages gives toy manufacturers, drunk drivers and pharmaceutical companies the go-ahead to take aim at children, the elderly and those not working for a paycheck and disregard the consequences.
