A quick legal question

[greybeta]

One kid taps another kid on the leg in the classroom. The other kid doesn't feel it, but he had some random tiny open wound that he didn't know about on that spot. Later, that other kid develops an infection as a result of this contact and loses his leg.

[Poll #993913]

Comments

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

But if he is missing a leg, his earning power is diminished -- there is less that he will be able to do, and many of the 'ground floor' jobs that people get to get experience for office jobs are right out. In addition, he now has some HUGE hospital bills, probably more than he can afford, as well as physical therapy. He will be paying for prosthetics all of his life, and there may be prescriptions as well. He may be in pain, or get depression. Depending on the situation, his insurance might skyrocket.

Would you want to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt plus increased bills and a diminished earning capacity? If there really is liability, then would you blame #2 for wanting to have some of those costs offset?

There is more to life than money, but not having enough money can really fuck your life up badly.

[loga.livejournal.com]

Did you read about this girl?

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/05/29/one_limbed_med_student_to_graduate_ucla/

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

Good for her. I'm not sure what your point is.

[loga.livejournal.com]

My point was that, okay, tragedies happen, but I don't see how litigation and monetary awards makes those tragedies any better.

It's up to people to make the most of out of their lives - regardless of handicaps, misfortunes, or whatever.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I think that just handwaving losing a limb, or multiple limbs, as 'tragedies happen' is a little bit cold. The tragedy, in Greybeta's hypothetical case and your real one, is pretty severe, with lifelong impact. Nor does getting a monetary award -- IF MERITED -- make the person in question incapable of making the most out of their life. Heck, maybe the kid who lost a leg is gonna use his monetary award to get a really swanky prosthetic that his working-class family never could have otherwise afforded, so that he can stay on the track team and lead his team to regional championship and go to college on a sports scholarship just like he'd always dreamed of doing. It's a hypothetical case, so I can say that he does if I want to. ;) (In the more real sense, we don't know what, if any, money the woman who graduated from UCLA got, especially in terms of scholarships, but possibly in terms of other money as well. Nor would this make her a bad person if she did benefit in that way -- she was coming into it without advantages that many of her fellow students would have taken for granted, and medical school is a VERY competitive place.)

The issue is whether it's merited. Did the person who smacked him have any way of knowing the possible results of their actions? (Ie, were they smacking him with a piece of jagged metal taken out of a midden heap?) Did this person have a history of being a bully? Did they want to cause the guy who lost a leg damage but wound up causing more than intended? Without more details, I think it's presumptive to automatically brand litigation as American greed, because at the core, a lost leg is not like having your clothes ruined or your car smashed.