Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1997. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Los Angeles Times; Sunday May 11, 1997 Page M-4
In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled that an award for pain and suffering survives even if the plaintiff dies while the trial judgment is on appeal. The case involved the family of an HIV -positive Delta Airlines reservation agent who claimed damages after he was fired in 1991. The jury awarded the plaintiff $275,000 for emotional distress, but he died of AIDS in 1995 while the case was on appeal. In a surprising ruling last year, the appellate court threw out the jury award, arguing that a 1992 change to the Code of Civil Procedure precluded any recovery of emotional distress damages by survivors if the plaintiff died during the appeal.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the common law rule that tort claims die with the plaintiff applies only if death occurs before judgment. For the better part of this century, the justices said, California courts have held that a plaintiff's death does not wipe out a judgment once it has been entered.
To have decided otherwise would give defendants a perverse incentive to delay through appeals or other avenues until victorious plaintiffs--especially in cases involving AIDS and exposure to toxic substances such as asbestos--simply died. Unfortunately, that has sometimes happened.
This sensible ruling comes as business groups and plaintiff lawyers are suiting up for battle again in Sacramento. Each camp has a host of bills. Some would cap punitive damage awards and limit wrongful job-termination compensation. Others would lift the existing cap on medical malpractice awards in specific instances and strengthen insurance bad-faith laws. Once again, the debate is certain to be dominated less by fact than by horror stories--about frivolous claims on the one hand and corporate malfeasance on the other.
Last year, tort "reformers" and the plaintiffs lobby bankrolled a flurry of confusing initiatives on the March and November ballots. Voters rejected most of them. Apparently voters, like the members of the Supreme Court, are understandably wary of radical change. Legislators should be as well.
Copyright © 1997 - Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Los Angeles Times, Permissions, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. http://www.latimes.com.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1997. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 1997. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .