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).
>