Comments on: Wrongful Death in New Jersey - Not Today http://blog.cuyler.com/2008/04/11/wrongful-death-in-new-jersey-not-today/ Musings on New Jersey Law or "A buncha lawyers rowing and blogging..." Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:12:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Rich Crooker http://blog.cuyler.com/2008/04/11/wrongful-death-in-new-jersey-not-today/#comment-290 Rich Crooker Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:21:19 +0000 http://blog.cuyler.com/?p=45#comment-290 Jaclyn - Thanks for the update. Below is one letter sent in opposition to the Bill the Governor vetoed. Obviously, many people expressed similar concerns. In particular, I assume that beyond the health-care providers the Governor referenced in his veto-statement, those opponents included NJ citizens who develop pharmaceuticals and other vital often life-sustaining products. I do not see how vesting the courts with "flexibility" would ultimately serve as a reasonable check on the problems this poses and would be interested in any elaboration you have seen on that aspect. I believe Governor Corzine did the right thing in vetoing the proposed expansion of recovery and that those who seek this change should have a rigorous burden of showing by clear proof that the benefits of doing so will substantially outweigh the harm. Letter was as follows: "Governor Corzine: The Bar Association supports this, but the League of Municipalities opposes it unless modified to exclude public entities from this kind of liability. That ought be enough said about why it shouldn't be enacted into law by a Governor seeking to eliminate the burden of crushing cost of living, debt and taxes on our citizens, but there is so much more to be said. As I the read the Bill, whenever somebody dies from a tort, if the decedent has one or more surviving spousal, direct-blood or legally-adopted relatives who experienced grief over the death, each of those survivors could now be entitled to subjective, largely-unpredictable damages. That liability would not be directly dependent on whether death was caused by an intentional murder (for which the law already provides powerful remedies to the State and punitive damages to the estate of the victim, although most murders cannot pay and there's no insurance) or strict product liability (to be liable there is no requirement that the manufacturer of a product, including vital medical products, have any "fault", but manufacturers are perceived as having lots of money to pay damages). Rather, it would be based on the susceptibility of the survivors to grief. The horror stories, now newly-admissable in court, would seem limited only by the myriad and gut-wrenching ways we as human beings experience the pain associated with every death of a loved one. Acceptance of reality, emotional strength, and stoicism in the face of adversity, traditional virtues in American culture, would be disincentivized. It's obvious that the law cannot ameliorate the pain of death of loved ones. This law is based, plain and simply, on visions of a new and limitless pool of claims, each with their own story of grief to tell, or to defend against, which has set the Bar to salivating over fees. As a lawyer whose business, in part, is associated with the tort system, I probably stand to make money if this Bill is passed, but, as a citizen, I believe this is a terrible idea, particularly at this time in a state with historically high insurance rates, brutal local taxes, and a dismal reputation among the business community, which also happens to be hemorrhaging productive citizens. Please DONT sign S-176. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Crooker" Jaclyn - Thanks for the update. Below is one letter sent in opposition to the Bill the Governor vetoed. Obviously, many people expressed similar concerns. In particular, I assume that beyond the health-care providers the Governor referenced in his veto-statement, those opponents included NJ citizens who develop pharmaceuticals and other vital often life-sustaining products. I do not see how vesting the courts with “flexibility” would ultimately serve as a reasonable check on the problems this poses and would be interested in any elaboration you have seen on that aspect. I believe Governor Corzine did the right thing in vetoing the proposed expansion of recovery and that those who seek this change should have a rigorous burden of showing by clear proof that the benefits of doing so will substantially outweigh the harm.

Letter was as follows:

“Governor Corzine:

The Bar Association supports this, but the League of Municipalities opposes it unless modified to exclude public entities from this kind of liability. That ought be enough said about why it shouldn’t be enacted into law by a Governor seeking to eliminate the burden of crushing cost of living, debt and taxes on our citizens, but there is so much more to be said.

As I the read the Bill, whenever somebody dies from a tort, if the decedent has one or more surviving spousal, direct-blood or legally-adopted relatives who experienced grief over the death, each of those survivors could now be entitled to subjective, largely-unpredictable damages. That liability would not be directly dependent on whether death was caused by an intentional murder (for which the law already provides powerful remedies to the State and punitive damages to the estate of the victim, although most murders cannot pay and there’s no insurance) or strict product liability (to be liable there is no requirement that the manufacturer of a product, including vital medical products, have any “fault”, but manufacturers are perceived as having lots of money to pay damages). Rather, it would be based on the susceptibility of the survivors to grief.

The horror stories, now newly-admissable in court, would seem limited only by the myriad and gut-wrenching ways we as human beings experience the pain associated with every death of a loved one. Acceptance of reality, emotional strength, and stoicism in the face of adversity, traditional virtues in American culture, would be disincentivized.

It’s obvious that the law cannot ameliorate the pain of death of loved ones. This law is based, plain and simply, on visions of a new and limitless pool of claims, each with their own story of grief to tell, or to defend against, which has set the Bar to salivating over fees.

As a lawyer whose business, in part, is associated with the tort system, I probably stand to make money if this Bill is passed, but, as a citizen, I believe this is a terrible idea, particularly at this time in a state with historically high insurance rates, brutal local taxes, and a dismal reputation among the business community, which also happens to be hemorrhaging productive citizens.

Please DONT sign S-176. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Crooker”

]]>