Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScottRiqui
..I think part of the problem is that your use of the word "sue" is a little vague. Are you talking about a multi-million dollar civil suit, intended to extract every penny you can from the shooter? Or would simply trying to recover medical expenses, lost wages, etcetera also count as "suing" in your book?...
|
"Suing" is "suing." For any sort of injury and any particular theory of liability, there are rules that describe the kind of damages recoverable.
One could ask for millions, but unless he can show legally recognized damages totaling millions he won't get them.
If you claim, and you can show, that you were injured through the negligence of another, you would be entitled only to the recognized damages you will be able to prove. The recognized damages are first your economic damages: past and estimated future medical expenses for care necessary to treat the injury; past lost wages (from being off work because of the injury); estimated future lost wages (if your injury leaves you with a reduced future earning capacity); costs associated with retraining you for a different type of work, if your injury leaves you unable to continue to pursue your past trade or profession; and costs you will incur to help overcome the effects of any lingering disability (e. g., making your home or car "handicapped accessible"),
In addition, on a negligence claim, you can recover what are called "general damages." These are damages to compensate for non-economic loss necessarily resulting from the injury. They are basically to compensate you for your pain and suffering, and the amount will be whatever the jury thinks your pain and suffering was worth. Juries can be fairly hard nosed about general damages. It used to be a rule of thumb that general damages would be around three times the "medical specials", i. e., the proven medical expenses.