2015 Spring c
in Dav.NonPec
I dont really understand why this is relevant as an argument to remove the cap:
"Cap is inconsistent with modern community values, which are more accepting of
disabilities than previously."
Could you help me understand this?
Comments
I believe it refers to the fact that in modern days, we are more accepting of people with disabilities and would want to provide better accommodation for them. Removing the cap allows for them to receive greater payments above 100K which helps them move on with their life in a better way. More money, more comfort for those with disabilities
ahh I see, understood now. Thanks!
how does the cap preclude juries from keeping up the pace of social/economic/technological change in society?
and also why rough upper limit was not a strict rule of law? is the limit explicitly indicated as $100k with indexation of inflation?
With a 100K cap, the amounts can never be greater than that, even if the juries are of the impression that compensation should be greater
The 100k limit was established as a baseline in Fenn vs Peterborough, but was only formalized into a rule of law in Neuzen vs Korn. Given that this case was before Neuzen vs Torn, it was not a rule of law yet