|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ISSUE: LIMITS ON AWARDS SUMMARY: In liability cases, damages ordinarily are awarded to compensate a victim or surviving family member for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and the mental anguish caused by needless death or injury. Punitive damages, designed to punish a defendant and to deter others from similar conduct, may be imposed as well. There is little disagreement within the General Assembly that victims should be compensated for economic losses (wage loss, medical expenses). Losses of an economic nature can be documented and quantified. Non-economic losses (pain and suffering, mental anguish), are more difficult to determine because of the subjective nature of the extent of the damage. Punitive damages are highly controversial and have been the subject of extensive debate in the courts, state legislatures throughout the country, and in Congress. (See Punitive Damages Section of this Program.) In 1992 the Maryland Court of Appeals concurred with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision that reduced a $1.8 million award in the case of Richard A. Edmonds v. Sarah Murphy, 325 Md. 342 (1992) holding that the State of Maryland's $350,000 cap on pain and suffering damages does not violate the equal protection doctrine by treating severely injured victims the same as those with milder injuries. This decision was the first time that the State's highest court had ruled on the legislatively-mandated damage cap. In 1993, however, the Court of Appeals ruled that the cap only applied to personal injury cases and not wrongful death actions (U.S. v. Glenn D. Striedel, et al.). The 1994 General Assembly approved and the Governor signed legislation to include wrongful death in non-economic damage limits, but raised the amount of the ceiling to $500,000 per individual and $750,000 in cases with multiple beneficiaries, on a prospective basis with a $15,000 annual adjustment. Between 1994 and 1999 there were signs that a modus vivendi had been reached on the cap on damage awards, but the filing of a bill to remove the limit for asbestos and tobacco cases in 1999 disrupted the truce. The legislation failed, but was submitted again in 2000 in a modified form. Another proposal that was introduced would have removed the cap entirely. Both bills died in the House Judiciary Committee. With two successive years of failure behind them, proponents of changing the damage cap decided to forgo a battle in 2001. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Legislation concerning damage awards should be reviewed carefully. Every effort should be made to assure that the total amount of the award is adequate to compensate victims and to deter potential offenders. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
