Accident victims are oftentimes forced to miss significant amounts of work, incur high medical expenses, and deal with incapacitating injuries that affect everything about their normal lives.

When this occurs, people do not earn their normal wages, can be put into financial dire straits, and suffer immensely. The next time that you hear someone espousing the position that personal injury plaintiffs should just “deal with” their injuries, or should receive finite recovery in court, try to put yourself in the position of someone who has been very seriously harmed.

If you could not work for two years because a semi-truck that was speeding rear-ended you and fractured your neck, would you feel that the semi-truck driver’s insurance company should pay your lost wages? If you had your leg mistakenly amputated due to medical malpractice and were forced to spend years rehabbing your body to regain the ability to walk with a prosthesis, would you feel that the insurance company for the negligent doctor should pay your medical bills? If a situation such as either of the above left you with no ability to ever run, play, or carry one of your children again, would you feel that a cap on your recoverable damages was appropriate?

One thing lawyers cannot do in court is to ask a jury to put themselves in an injured Plaintiff’s shoes. However, when you hear people talking about the frivolity of personal injury litigation or capping damages therein, you should most certainly put yourself in the shoes of someone that has been very seriously harmed and ask: If that were you, would you want your rights fully vindicated, or would you be willing to simply accept that your life was drastically worsened and move on?