Greedy old man or victim of emotional jurisprudence?

[EVT1]

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/01/19820706-in-protest-man-repays-insurance-money-with-4-tons-of-coins?lite


The facts are a little hard to come by- but his 15yo son was killed in a car accident as a passenger.  A truck blew a stop sign injuring the other three- which considering it killed his kid I can assume were serious.  Evidently he had a 1.6 million dollar life insurance policy on his child and was paid- the lawsuits following ended up with 800K in damages with the most going to the same man because his child was killed- and that is no surprise. 

After an appeal by the other passengers he was ordered to payback some of it- and is pissed- hence the pallet jack full of coins.

So on its face it seems this man is in the right- his personal finances and insurance should have no bearing on the suit against the drivers, etc.

But allow me to interject another issue- perhaps the 800K represented the maximum insurance payout- and that even distributing it by damage caused is far shy of the real damages, wrongful death, medical bills, etc.

At that point everyone gets a %.  But the idea of the law is to make people whole- so if the judge/jury is aware that one party- who is obviously a wealthy one- will be made whole and then some (as far as money can do that)- is it right to leave others made less whole?

Or- where I come in- isn't this guy just being a jerk?  Why not let it go?  The man is 76 now- which never mind the creepy factor that he was a 61yo new dad- and the 1.6 million wasn't enough and he was pissed off enough about it to act this way in defiance of the court- which may or may not be wrong in their decision because there is no information on it.

First impressions- greedy dick.

[Virgil Showlion]

I've never understood how the concept of "made whole" could apply to any kind of death. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of a life. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of "emotional distress".

Nobody is "made whole" by a legal settlement. The premise is an utter fiction to begin with. A man whose son is killed isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a man with a dead son and some money. A man who's crippled in a car accident isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a crippled man with some money.

So throw the concept of "made whole" out the window. The only relevant concept is "Given past cases where the defendant did X and has Y dollars, and the plaintiff has Z dollars, how much did the courts force the defendant to cough up? Let's find out and do that again."

Is that fair?

Yes. No. Maybe on Tuesdays. In a box, with a fox.

Whether or not people think Mr. Herrin is a "jerk" or not will probably depend on whether they think the appellate court ruling is fair or not.

[EVT1]

Aug 2, 2013 0:30:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've never understood how the concept of "made whole" could apply to any kind of death. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of a life. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of "emotional distress".

Nobody is "made whole" by a legal settlement. The premise is an utter fiction to begin with. A man whose son is killed isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a man with a dead son and some money. A man who's crippled in a car accident isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a crippled man with some money.

So throw the concept of "made whole" out the window. The only relevant concept is "Given past cases where the defendant did X and has Y dollars, and the plaintiff has Z dollars, how much did the courts force the defendant to cough up? Let's find out and do that again."

Is that fair?

Yes. No. Maybe on Tuesdays. In a box, with a fox.

Whether or not people think Mr. Herrin is a "jerk" or not will probably depend on whether they think the appellate court ruling is fair or not.

You are obviously correct- there is no 'made whole' when someone dies. The general idea in torts was that the plaintiff be made whole- hard to do when they are dead- so we went to a survivor action- where they would be made whole. Of course it is a fiction- but we have always placed a price on life or limbs, or the loss of an earner.

Workman's comp in the US places a price on your body parts and that's that.  Your arm is worth the same amount as a the arm of a Wall Street jackass.

Don't really care what the court says- I think he is a jerk.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2013 1:17:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 2, 2013 0:30:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've never understood how the concept of "made whole" could apply to any kind of death. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of a life. There's no reasonable way to quantify the value of "emotional distress".

Nobody is "made whole" by a legal settlement. The premise is an utter fiction to begin with. A man whose son is killed isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a man with a dead son and some money. A man who's crippled in a car accident isn't suddenly a "whole" man, he's a crippled man with some money.

So throw the concept of "made whole" out the window. The only relevant concept is "Given past cases where the defendant did X and has Y dollars, and the plaintiff has Z dollars, how much did the courts force the defendant to cough up? Let's find out and do that again."

Is that fair?

Yes. No. Maybe on Tuesdays. In a box, with a fox.

Whether or not people think Mr. Herrin is a "jerk" or not will probably depend on whether they think the appellate court ruling is fair or not.

You are obviously correct- there is no 'made whole' when someone dies. The general idea in torts was that the plaintiff be made whole- hard to do when they are dead- so we went to a survivor action- where they would be made whole. Of course it is a fiction- but we have always placed a price on life or limbs, or the loss of an earner.

Workman's comp in the US places a price on your body parts and that's that.  Your arm is worth the same amount as a the arm of a Wall Street jackass.

Don't really care what the court says- I think he is a jerk.

And you can. (think he's a jerk) You'd probably dislike the reading on his concern-o-meter regarding that judgement though.

[kilroy]

The accident was in 2001 so his son was born in 1986 or so, making him a new dad in his 40s.  Not quite the same creepy factor.  As for whether he's being a jerk, if you were still being jerked around by lawyers more than a decade after your child died, wouldn't you be? 

[justme]

His son died, so obviously he suffered the most grievous injuries and that would be why the father was compensated with the largest portion of the $800k insurance money. I wonder how bad the injuries of the other passengers were - whether they were serious enough to have a lasting impact on life. If they were permanently injured from the accident I would hope I'd have the grace to let them split the insurance money to be put towards future treatments for them because no amount of money would bring my kid back. Especially so if I was well off financially, which it sounds as if the dad is even without the separate insurance policy.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The sad, clinical truth of the matter is that "made whole" refers to made economically whole. As evt1 pointed out- facts are a little sparse, but it is most likely we're talking about actual economic damages like medical and burial expenses- and then you get into apportionment in at-fault states. I suppose depending on the state, there might be remedies for things like "wrongful death" in which an umbrella liability policy, or homeowner's policy might kick in- but that would be a separate suit I would think? At any rate- I can empathize with being jerked around by lawyers for a decade- but suffice it to say that in my opinion, which is I grant you, the opinion of someone with two healthy children who hasn't experienced his loss, he should put his time and energy to more productive use. I really HATE- and I mean HATE stupidisms like "move on" or "get over" things like this. You don't. You never do. The immediate pain subsides, but this has been dragging on for too long. He probably hasn't even really had an opportunity to grieve properly. I'm sorry for his loss, but this doesn't strike me as healthy.