Controversy
Economic testimony regarding hedonic damages has been allowed in over two thirds of the states and two thirds of the Federal District courts and has been endorsed in unanimous supreme court decisions in Nevada, New Mexico, and Mississippi and in appellate decisions in Ohio. In some states where trial judges have admitted the economic testimony a trial judge in another court may have not admitted the testimomy. The same holds true for Federal Circuit courts. Undeterred by a unimous Supreme Court decision endorsing hedonic damages testimony by an expert economist, The Mississippi legislature subsequently adopted tort reform that precludes loss of enjoyment of life testimony by economic experts. There is significant scholarship endorsing hedonic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Further, Hedonic Damages were allowed as an element of recovery in the September 11, 2001 Victim Recovery Fund. Although the category of non-economic damages normally included in hedonic damage testimony was acknowledged when identifying and determining compensation for the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the final determinations were not based on the methods or arguments normally presented by those experts who calculate and testify regarding hedonic damages.
The academic literature on the topic of testimony in personal injury and wrongful death cases currently (2011) reflects more a lack of controversy than implied above. In particular, despite a plea to use VSL estimates to better inform triers of fact in tort cases by Posner and Sunstein, Kip Viscusi published a retort and Thomas Ireland has published a number of articles indicating the demise of hedonic damages testimony in recent years
Read more about this topic: Hedonic Damages
Famous quotes containing the word controversy:
“Ours was a highly activist administration, with a lot of controversy involved ... but I’m not sure that it would be inconsistent with my own political nature to do it differently if I had it to do all over again.”
—Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.)
“And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence, they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.”
—Thomas Hobbes (1579–1688)