I have just been reading about a court settlement arrived at in an English Court, and a thought crossed my mind. A young player, 'who showed a lot of promise in the game', had his leg broken in two places after an aggressive tackle by another player. He has been awarded nearly $10 million as compensation. he is now going to University to study for a degree in English. Good for him.
Now, what am I going to get at here?
He is NOT crippled. He has his whole life in front of him, as a normal person.He can progress as far as he wishes, but just not in football. But he has been rewarded for an 'accident' by being made a mulit-millionaire.Instantly. Where I find this sort of settlement wrong is this: He hasnīt been 'aided' to overcome his injury..he has been rewarded. This is what I find to be wrong in the current system. I think that they should be payed their 'damages' in the same way as they would have continued in their life before the ' accident'. An incremental payment of damages every month , in the same way as he would have earned his living.I have no problem with victims of other peoples' negligence being helped, so long as it reflects reality.
How will this make a difference? In a couple of major ways. Firstly, instead of awarding him a lump sum of $10 million, he could be awarded an inital amount which would be invested to produce an annuity. In this way, the actual amount of damages payed out could be reduced dramatically. A tenth of the sum awarded, invested correctly, would produce an average income of around $50.000.pa.For life. This capital investment of $1 million would be adjustable relative to the injuries the person suffered, and potential incapacity. Somebody who needed total care attendance for the rest of their life would be awarded an amount which would return an income to cover all requirements.
To be awarded so much money and not have to be regulated in what they do with it lends a potential for the person to blow the lot, and then have to claim benefits. That would be overcome at a stroke. They would never be able to lose the lot in a short time..and it does happen, and they become an enormous drain upon the Social security system.
This type of legislation would also cut down the number of ridiculously high claims being presented to courts all over the Western World. And the Lawyers etc would get a realistic amount of compensation for their work in securing damages payments. 20% of the amount awarded in my scenario would mean they would get 20% of the $1 million awarded, instead of the $10 million.Still no mean reward for their work. And the reality of the fact that the claimants would only get a periodical payment, rather than a lump sum,would remove the temptation to use a Court claim to become instant multi-millionaires overnight.
The strain on Insurance Companies having to find the enormous sums currently being awarded would be restricted, and that would, hopefully, be reflected in lowering insurance premiums amongst the millions who contribute to these payments via their premiums each year.( yeah pinch me, I am dreaming ) I donīt have any sympathy with Insurance Companies at all, and the reality would probably be that THEY would keep the benefits, rather than pass them on through lower premiums. I can dream though, canīt I?
I canīt even begin to imagine the amounts of money paid out to successful litigations throughout the west, but I bet it runs into the 10's of billions every year. Just imagine the savings made by cutting those settlements by 75%.....you could pay off the national debt within 10 years!!
This was,obviously, a knee-jerk reaction, and consequently not thought through, so there are gaping holes to attack me with and no doubt some will attack my theory..but I donīt doubt many will support it too!

------------------
You know that look women get when they want sex? No, me neither..

fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Then there was only one... 11.08.2007
Growing old is harder than growing up.
And losing loved ones is even harder

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
Yahoo messenger:nickcannspain
MSN Messenger-nicholascann@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 08-12-2008).]

Get injured in the Australia workplace and there are no millions waiting. In fact the compensation doesn't even cover what you lost. Many years ago I injured my right hand. Still have problems to this day with it. I cannot use powertools and things that vibrate a lot for a long time. So that killed working in the boat industry. All in all I am lucky because I can still live a normal life, just not work in heavy industry basically.

Anyway I spent 3 years off work, even though I wanted to do something else. The insurance company refused to pay for retraining and I received 30% of my weekly wage for that time, so we basically had to live off my wifes wage. During that time I retrained myself using older skills I had and took them in a different direction.

Anyway, another year later, making it 4 years later, the insurance company finally decides to pay me out. I go to court and I got paid out $110,000. Sounds a lot doesn't it. Over that 4 years I lost $150,000 (on top of what they had paid me along the way) in wages and we sold or house at the time so we could afford to live.

Then I hear claims where say tommy was diddled by a priest once at his church and gets $2,000,000. Doesn't make a lot of sense really does it.

More crazy claims. A guy wo lived in my neighbourhood as a kid grew up to be a drug smoking heavy drinking no hoper. He lived on welfare and never had a job in his life. While drugged out and drunk he was sleeping in the back of another no hopers car while they were out looking for trouble. Anyway the drunk drugged driver has an accident and the guy in the back seat loses the use of a hand in the accident. Bad nerve damage or something. It goes to court and his lawyer pleads he can never work again. Again? He never has to start with. He got paid out $1,000,000. Back in a time when $50,000 bought a nice house.

I have to agree Nick that compensation needs a huge overhaul.

Sorry to hear that, Aus . Hope things are picking up for you again now, and soon to be back to where you were.

I just had a thought which is really an extension of the theme. By reducing the amount of damages handed out by my system, it would leave more in the 'kitty' of available funds to facilitate aiding people just like you.
Somebody has an accident, and succeeds in winning damages. This person is 25 years old, and COULD have possibly had another 40 years to live. He needs to be helped to put his life back together, and continue to require help due to disabilities suffered. Just assuming that he was earning $100.000 pa. That would mean he would need $4 million to get through his expected lifetime. The system NOW would probably pay out $5 million to allow for inflation etc.So they make a payment to him of $5 million.
If he was made an initial payment of $100.000 ( a year's salary), that would leave a lump sum of $4,900,000. Take $2 million, put it in an investment Fund for him, and it would probably return the $100,000 in interest every year.( it could be tax free ) Interest made on investments should reflect any changes in inflation etc., if managed correctly.
So now, we have a person who is being recompensed for his disability, and by doing it this way, there is still $2.8 million left in the compensation reserve to help people who would otherwise not have been compensated because there wasnīt enough in the kitty to go round. And meanwhile, that $2.8 million would still be earning interest for the Fund, instead of either earning more for somebody who has been adequately recompensed already. The compensation Fund could be managed by a non-profit entity, and imagine how much would go into that Fund, if all the Insurance Companies were obliged to follow the same procedure..I wonder what the gross total of compensation paid out yearly comes to. Using my example alone, It would double the number of people being paid compensation at the same rate in one go.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 08-13-2008).]

That was years ago Nick, fortunately.
I have had a new set of demons to battle since then. Brain tumour and the newer problems related to it 9 years after.
I wont complain becuase there is worse off than me and I will get back on top ....again.

Who had to pay this $10mil? And why exactly? You play football, you expect to get tackled its kinda part of the game, and last time I checked, agressiveness was encouraged. Granted if he got creamed from behind 5 seconds after a whistle, thats one thing, but this sounds like the armed robber who sued the store owner because he got shot.

I could live the rest of my life comfortably on one million, think about that, even invested poorly, you'd be raking in over $50,000 a year. Thats not bad pay, not to mention, without a job and responsibilities, you end up spending a lot less money than if you have to commute, pay for lunch, etc, on a daily basis. Not to mention, in that scenario, end of your live, you still have now well over a million to pass on.

here is a link to the story:
http://news.sky.com/skynews...mp;lpos=searchresult s
Nick