Hedonic damages
Below is a wonderful summary of where hedonic damages are at the current time. It is a note from a listserv post by Stan Smith, Ph.D. Dr. Smith (http://www.smitheconomics.com) is one of the leading and most respected economist in the area of hedonic damages. Here is his post (Thanks Dr. Smith for the most insightful update!)
UPDATE ON HEDONIC DAMAGES IN THE COURTROOM (From Dr. Stan Smith):
New Jersey and Nevada continue to be states where testimony on the value of life in non-fatal injury cases is admitted a very high percentage of the time. The same is true in Arkansas for non-fatal as well as - note this - fatal injury cases. Arkansas is of the very few states that allow for the value of life of the decedent. Montana and Arizona have also allowed my testimony in non-fatal injury cases this year although the long record is mixed.
In the past, overall, half the states and about two thirds of the Federal Circuits have admitted my testimony on hedonic damages, but most of these states/circuits have a broad mix of admitting and denying economic testimony on the loss of enjoyment of life in non-fatal injury cases.
A very few states have ruled against it in Supreme Ct. cases, these are Nebraska, Mississippi (used to be for it, but now disallowed by statute now) and West Virginia to my recollection. No Federal appellate court has affirmed the denial it so far as I know, but one has affirmed the admission, an Ohio Federal appellate court, which said it met Daubert.
An appellate ruling stating that a trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding hedonics is not a ruling against hedonics no more than the converse is a ruling for hedonics.
There are a few intermediate state courts have ruled against it, and a few for it based on Daubert, in a handful of states. An appellate court for Los Angeles comes to mind as having having ruled against it, for example.
It seems that since the term Hedonic Damages was incorporated into the 9/11 Victim Compensation Act passed by the Senate (the Airline Stabilization Act) as an element of damages approved for compensation, this has been somewhat persuasive to a number judges. Feinberg, in implementing the Act, set a rather low fixed sum on the value, at $250K, for reasons which I can understand, but do not necessarily agree with.
**********
UPDATE ON HEDONIC DAMAGES IN THE COURTROOM (From Dr. Stan Smith):
New Jersey and Nevada continue to be states where testimony on the value of life in non-fatal injury cases is admitted a very high percentage of the time. The same is true in Arkansas for non-fatal as well as - note this - fatal injury cases. Arkansas is of the very few states that allow for the value of life of the decedent. Montana and Arizona have also allowed my testimony in non-fatal injury cases this year although the long record is mixed.
In the past, overall, half the states and about two thirds of the Federal Circuits have admitted my testimony on hedonic damages, but most of these states/circuits have a broad mix of admitting and denying economic testimony on the loss of enjoyment of life in non-fatal injury cases.
A very few states have ruled against it in Supreme Ct. cases, these are Nebraska, Mississippi (used to be for it, but now disallowed by statute now) and West Virginia to my recollection. No Federal appellate court has affirmed the denial it so far as I know, but one has affirmed the admission, an Ohio Federal appellate court, which said it met Daubert.
An appellate ruling stating that a trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding hedonics is not a ruling against hedonics no more than the converse is a ruling for hedonics.
There are a few intermediate state courts have ruled against it, and a few for it based on Daubert, in a handful of states. An appellate court for Los Angeles comes to mind as having having ruled against it, for example.
It seems that since the term Hedonic Damages was incorporated into the 9/11 Victim Compensation Act passed by the Senate (the Airline Stabilization Act) as an element of damages approved for compensation, this has been somewhat persuasive to a number judges. Feinberg, in implementing the Act, set a rather low fixed sum on the value, at $250K, for reasons which I can understand, but do not necessarily agree with.
**********
Labels: courts
posted by The Experts @ 6:12 PM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home