The imposing of caps by legislatures is arbitrary when done in a manner that is not supported by reason, and is instead based on political expediency or a whim. Such caps ingore the complexity of the injuries that each victim brings to the courthouse, in a cynical attempt to force them into a “one-size-fits-all” mechanism that pleases the insurance companies, but usually denies appropriate compensation to the people who need it most.

I think that raising caps is a step in the right direction, but I continue to see them as dangerous to the medical consumer. But they also infringe on the jury’s right and obligation to arrive at damages based on evidence that it sees and hears during the trial. Nothing about that process is unchecked, contrary to what the tort “reformers” would have you believe. Here in New York State, any damages amount that appears to be inflated and/or unreasonable may be challenged. If the amount is out of line with amounts that have been awarded in similar past cases, that amount will be reduced. This happens regularly, and also functions to increase awards when juries have undervalued cases.

I’m also interested as to what qualifies a legislative act as “arbitrary”. Allowing a court to have unlimited power in any regard is a violation of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist between the branches of government. If the caps on damages (usually non-economic damages, which are inherently difficult to quantify by anyone, be it a legislator or a juryman) are too low, it would seem the most logical thing to do would be to raise the cap, not hand over supreme, unchecked power to the judicial branch and hope all goes well.