It seems to me that juries are forced to make decisions based on projections about the future–due to lack of perfect information about the future. They should be able to set parameters for judgements which are more targeted based on actual use & need rather than .
This may be more difficult if a jury only compensates the victim on a percentage basis–which seems to complicate things (plus what would be compensated would have to be very clearly articulated).
My guess is it would also be a blend of 1) financial investment product (that would be similar to now) plus 2) adjustments based on need (instead of just economic projections). Not sure if this makes it better for the parties entirely. It may somehow create more risk for the insurance companies–ie risk on the books.
|There are no public comments available to display.|