Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:06

From: Tsachi Keren-Paz

Subject: Bye-bye limitation?

Dear Andrew and colleagues,

These are interesting points. I myself vacillate about the appropriateness of pain and suffering in general, but as long as we give them in general, I don't think the passage of time should matter, especially where – as pointed out by Heather – 1) the effects of sexual abuse on the victim are often long lasting and 2) damages serve other purposes such as vindication and in appropriate cases (like this) punishment. This is true especially with respect to dignitary torts. Granted, tort law cannot undo the suffering, but awarding damages can serve important aspects of redress, vindication and corrective (and retributive) justice. For this reason the amount that the victim received from CICA is irrelevant. If at all, and this is a big if, the solution should be that the victim who was later compensated by the wrongdoer would reimburse CICA.

I must confess that I'm a bit baffled by what seems to me as your almost hostile approach towards the victim ("repellent") as if she – rather than the defendant – is the big villain here. Be rest assure that also after she will receive compensation from the defendant we need not envy her good fortune, even though she did receive some amount in the past from CICA. Unlike you, I don't view the plaintiff at all as greedy, but rather as motivated by a simple corrective(/retributive) instinct which lies behind the common law of torts: that those who violated so seriously one's rights should pay for it, at least when they are able to do so.

Best wishes
Tsachi

Dr. Tsachi Keren-Paz
School of Law
Keele University
Staffordshire ST5 5BG
England
Office: CBC 2.015
Phone: 01782 584358
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/la/staff/tkerenpaz.htm
Book "Torts, Egalitarianism and Distributive Justice" https://www.ashgate.com/shopping/title.asp?key1=&key2=&orig=results&isbn=0%207546%204653%20X

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Tettenborn
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:24 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: bye-bye limitation?]

Dear Tsachi & colleagues,

Isn't there a difference here? Suffering isn't the same as compensation. I absolutely agree that the victim's interest in not suffering the abuse in the first place should be given the highest priority. But that's not the same as her interest in turning that past event into money 20 years down the line, which is the interest at stake here. I think that's much less important, and actually rather repellent.

I've always had my doubts about what purpose is served by large pain and suffering awards generally. It might help do something about recent trauma. But my doubts are magnified many-fold when the money appears nearly a quarter century after the pain.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>