In agreement with Kevin, I'll argue again that some compensation for 
pain and suffering should be included. Just because it's difficult to 
value, or because the value is different to different people, doesn't 
eliminate the ethical merit of providing the compensation. Just because 
it's hard to figure out doesn't mean you don't do it. Bethany should 
get compensated at a level that seems fair to her. The driver should 
have to pay at a level that is fair/sufficiently punitive to him. A 
difference between the two values is no more unfair than the fact that 
we pay different people different amounts to do different jobs that are 
usually more based on what they're willing to do and less based on any 
absolute measure of how much they're doing.   Maybe she gets $100k, and 
he pays $50k and loses his license for a year (and insurance covers the 
rest). Maybe she gets $50k and he pays $500k and the difference goes to 
better lines/markers at intersections, and giant pit traps that open up 
under cars that run stop signs or red lights when bikers, pedestrians, 
skaters, or other cars are within a quarter mile of the intersection.	
I'm sure something could be worked out. :-)

Determining these values is difficult, and does require consideration 
of each person and each incident. Hopefully agreement can be reached in 
person between rational individuals. I'm sure there are legal 
guidelines which can help. If not, maybe third party arbitration can 
reach a settlement. If not, the last resort of court systems and 
litigation becomes necessary. That's how I'd approach it. I think we 
have a good system in place, just that it would work better if everyone 
came to the table with an attitude of determining what's 
reasonable/fair/right rather than how much they think they can get. 
It's the latter attitude that creates the impression we have that our 
current system is broken.

And I really disagree that getting hit by a truck should be considered 
an accepted risk of biking. I've gone on the Hellavua ride tour myself, 
and it's very well organized, and very safely designed. It follows less 
busy roads, people wear bright colored clothing, traffic laws are 
obeyed, and so forth. It occurs on the weekend when traffic is lighter 
anyway. The name comes from the fact that it goes, in part, through 
Hell Michigan. People have a right to expect that others on the road 
are alert and attentive and careful.  Though I do agree that this goes 
in both directions- both to bikers and drivers. If the incident had 
been, for example, a bicycle messenger weaving in traffic in busy New 
York streets ignoring all traffic laws then the biker, even though 
they're the one who's injured, should pay for pain and suffering 
(albeit not much) to the driver who hit them for making that driver 
deal with the emotional trauma of hitting someone who weaved in front 
of them.

Dave


On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote:

> my biggest problem with the "life sucks" argument against suing for 
> suffering, is that it amounts to saying "if it can be fixed, you 
> should sue for the price of fixing it, if it can't be fixed, it has no 
> value". For example, bethany gets money to cover the cost of surgery.  
> If no surgery were available to fix her problem, she would get no 
> compensation. She will have her jaw wired, if an extremely expensive 
> alternative were available to fix her with no wiring, pain or 
> suffering, she would get money for it, but since no such alternative 
> exists, the agrument goes that she should get no compensation for it.
>
> And for the record, $10,000 in 1945 dollars adjusted for inflation is 
> $105,048.
>
> - kevin
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Andrew Reeves wrote:
>
>>   I am leaning towards the anti-litigation argument, and it's not
>> because I am belittling the very grievous pain and suffering that
>> Bethany obviously underwent and is still undergoing, but precisely
>> because I feel that trying to express that in dollars and cents (or
>> in yootles, if you wish) demeans the spiritual essence of existence.
>> Danny's point that for 10 million dollars he would allow his face to
>> be bashed in but for 10 thousand he would not, only shows what HE
>> thinks is a lot of money--I could well imagine millions of people for
>> whom $10,000 is already immeasurable wealth and that includes my own
>> self 60 years ago. Yet I doubt that I would have concluded such a
>> bargain and not only because the final outcome of corrective surgery
>> is always uncertain (which you wisely eliminated from consideration)
>> but mainly because that is not my idea of making money. There is a
>> certain satisfaction in doing that in a societally constructive way
>> as Danny should know best; he earns his fabulous salary from Yahoo
>> by doing things that are useful, and pleasurable to himself to boot.
>> A long way from going out to harvest your money tree every month,
>> and the latter would not even involve taking it from a fellow human!
>>   A few technical points. Loss of earnings/loss of productivity is
>> clearly part of compensatory damages and would be eligible for
>> reimbursement in any system. To figure that is not at all difficult
>> if you establish the market value of her time in dollars/hour,
>> whether actually lost or not. You yourself conceded that suing for
>> punitive damages would be inappropriate in the circumstances, so
>> the only area of contention is the "value" of pain and suffering.
>> I suggest that could be quantified by the cost of analgesic tablets
>> to keep her completely pain free for as long as required--obviously,
>> a long shot of what is usually collected under this heading in most
>> cases of litigation, much of which is just padding for lawyers' fees
>> and windfall enrichment.
>>   A traffic accident between two vehicles is always a function of
>> the omissions and commissions of both parties. Even if technical
>> guilt devolves on one participant only, the question remains, could
>> the other party have done anything to avoid the accident? Not knowing
>> enough of the details, I cannot answer that question. Certainly the
>> name of the event ("Helluva Ride Bike Tour") made me wince with
>> discomfort--Helluva ride indeed. Why was it necessary to route it
>> through traffic-rich streets? Were any sound signals given? Were the
>> bikers in one cluster and Bethany just happened to be in the line of
>> the cross-street when the truck barreled in? And so forth. Ex post
>> facto these may be moot questions now. At any rate, the fact that
>> the other party sent flowers shows that he is no irresponsible rascal.
>> I do hope that the liability will be settled out of court.
>>   Shirley came to exactly the same conclusions independently and I
>> can see from the "biking whiteboard" (which I consulted only after
>> writing the above) that I am not quite alone in that opinion.
>>   Anyway, the best to Bethany (whom, with parents, we do hope to see
>> this weekend) == Danny's Grandpa Andrew
>>   SHIRLEY'S POSTSCRIPT:
>> "Pain and Suffering" is an intangible. The Buddha taught that all life
>> was pain and suffering; whom do you sue for that?? The idea that you
>> are entitled to recompense is a new concept and carried too far. By
>> doing anything in this world, you assume some risk. Bike riders
>> ("Helluva" or not) assume a clearly understood distinct risk and they
>> think they get compensated by the pleasure of the sport, or saving
>> transportation time, or getting the exercise. Unfortunately, there
>> comes payback time every now and then and you must grit your teeth
>> about it.==SHIRLEY (as paraphrased by Andrew; she is too busy to sit
>> down at the computer).
>>
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
morris Æ edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235