Guys. Remember. What we're talking about is a cap on the "pain and suffering" awards. So it's not like you can't sue and get paid back for your time and trouble and cost.
In the case of Angua's aunt, that would have no effect on her ability to sue for the cost of the two surgeries, the cost of lost wages during the time period she was unable to work, and any costs for other related care during the entire time period. However, what it does do is prevent folks from getting multi-million dollar awards of straight cash above and beyond what they lost.
That's the real problem with our system right now. There are way to many people who see lawsuits as the same as winning the lottery. You get hurt, and think: "Hey! I'll sue them for tons of money". Um... Realistically, you should be able to sue only for costs incurred to you directly. If you lost X days of work, you get paid for the days you lost. In the case of ongoing damage (loss of limbs, mobility, or something else permanently debilitating), then you can calculate a loss of ability to work, and factor in some legitimate amount of penalty cost for having such a major loss to yourself.
But if you fully recover, or in the case of a medical proceedure, you recover to the extent normally expected for the proceedure, then you shouldn't be able to sue for anything beyond actual costs you incurred as a direct result of a mistake made by the doctors. After the second surgery, was Angua's aunt any more negatively affected then she would have been after just the first? Was there any lingering condition that was caused solely by the fact that the sponge was left inside her? If not, then she shouldn't get any money beyond her costs. In other words, she should not have one cent more then if she hadn't had those surgeries at all.
We really do think of malpractice as a windfall for the victim. That's a huge problem. That's where we get these huge settlements. It's easy to make a jury feel sympathetic to a victim. It's easy, when that jury is only looking at that one case, for that jury to look at the amount of money the doctor/hospital has and award a huge settlement. What the jury doesn't understand is that at any given time, there are a dozen other suits going on for various reasons and each of them is approaching it with the same "we'll teach them a lesson" attitude. An attitude that is further fostered by lawyers who have a vested interest, not in justice or fairness, but in getting their clients the absolute maximum settlement possible.
Putting caps on pain and suffering awards is not unreasonable. It will not prevent people from being able to sue for damages. It does prevent the ludicrous amounts that people do sue for. Even with inflation, 250k is a pretty good chunk of change. Realize also, that if the person is permanently handicapped, they're going to also get additional "lost wages" income (amortized essentially for their entire life, so it's going to be alot). That cap is just on the "extra" money folks award. It's not money the victim "needs" due to the mistake. It's just money thrown at them to make them feel better (and largely to satisfy greed). Honestly, I've never understood pain and suffering awards at all. To my way of thinking, if my financial hardships as a result of someone else's mistake are covered, then that's all that needed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please