The modern law of damages Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda®
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Economic loss are incurred financially; they are only evidence by financial documents such balance sheet and receipts. Economic loss can be consequential pure loss. Pure economic loss occurs when physical injury to the property or person respectively is not taken into consideration.

In tort, pure economic damage is irrecoverable. Examples of pure economic loses are: income loses to a family when breadwinners dies through accident, market value loses due to poor architect advice and loss in a company production due to power interruption by a contractor (Cooter & Thomas, 2003).

Non-economic loses; on the other hand, controversially go against torts and limits damages of “cap.” The damages result from intangible harms. Mostly they are personal felt harms through symptoms and signs. The harms can be psychological stress, lack of joy, disfigurement, pain, and mental disorder. Non-economic loses cannot be calculated directly; however, forensics uses related elements to determine the extent of loses (Rothstein, & Sullivan, 2006).

Economic Losses Category

The three main areas of economic loss are earning loss in the past and future, probable pecuniary losses, household loses. Forensics can accurately calculate most damages caused through injury or wrongful death. In injury, the plaintiff faces impaired past and future earning ability. In personal injury, this is recoverable damage.

It measured by the plaintiff’s diminished power and capacity in the future and past that is directly attributed to the injury. It is never based on actual earning capacity loss. There is no need for use of past earning history and documents to back up this such claim; however, there should be grounds to sufficient evident with a degree of susceptibility. Normally such proof is left at the discretion of jury (Cooter & Thomas, 2003).

The probable pecuniary losses upon wrongful death are a vital tool in arguing a claim. This consideration is also closely associated with beneficiary parties.

In wrongful death claim, loss of inheritance is also an element to this claim. Forensics can estimate with a certain degree loses incurred due to care, support, maintain ace, services, contribution to pecuniary values, counsel and advice with exclusion of inheritance loss. Spouse-disease relationship status, family harmony and shared interests are elements of consideration (Rothstein, & Sullivan, 2006).

Household loses are vital elements for forensics when making economic damages claims. In some states, hedonic damages are considered as part of this claim. Medical cost, fringe benefits and household services, are consideration in most states that forensics need to consider. Forensics need to consider household appreciation and discount rates while calculating this element. However, this is not mandatory in some states (Cooter & Thomas, 2003).

Conclusion

In any state, economic forensic testimony must have evidence consistent with facts on the case. This should be achieved through accepted economic analysis procedure and help from trier’s facts. However, economic forensic analysts need to know with a lot of accuracy their evidence limits for considerations.

Economic damage rule can be compressed into two main points i.e., in personal injury, the standard economic loss or damage is the earning capacity, while in wrongful death, the standard is probable financial support. While calculating, taxes need to be deducted from the estimated values. Money time values should be taken into consideration; as a result, prior losses need to be presented as they are with no adjustments. At the same time, future values should be calculated by present money value.

References

Cooter, R., & Thomas U. (2003). Law and Economics. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Addison-Wesley.

Rothstein, R., & Sullivan, T. (2006). The modern law of damages. Toronto: Irwin Law.

Print
More related papers
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2019, May 7). The modern law of damages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-modern-law-of-damages-essay/

Work Cited

"The modern law of damages." IvyPanda, 7 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-modern-law-of-damages-essay/.

References

IvyPanda. (2019) 'The modern law of damages'. 7 May.

References

IvyPanda. 2019. "The modern law of damages." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-modern-law-of-damages-essay/.

1. IvyPanda. "The modern law of damages." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-modern-law-of-damages-essay/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "The modern law of damages." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-modern-law-of-damages-essay/.

Powered by CiteTotal, free reference maker
If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
Cite
Print
1 / 1