•  
  •  
 

San Diego Law Review

Library of Congress Authority File

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79122466

Document Type

Comment

Abstract

This Comment focuses on the potential injustice to patients in a persistent vegetative state and the proper manner in which to handle these cases. Based on tort principles underlying the justification for the award of damages to plaintiffs, including deterrence and compensation, plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state should be entitled to damages for loss of enjoyment of life. To allow for these awards, courts must separate loss of enjoyment of life from pain and suffering, thereby allowing vegetative plaintiffs who cannot prove that they are in pain to recover hedonic damages from their wrongdoers. Part II discusses the effects the tort reform movement and public policy have had on damage awards. Part III explains both the distinction between pain and suffering damages and loss of enjoyment of life damages and the various methods by which courts have determined whether to award hedonic damages to those in a persistent vegetative state. First, this Part analyzes the manner in which courts determine if there is a difference between pain and suffering damages and loss of enjoyment of life damages. Second, this Part examines how courts determine the loss of enjoyment of life damages that are recoverable by patients in a persistent vegetative state. Part IV recommends that courts divide pain and suffering damages and loss of enjoyment of life damages into separate categories of recovery, thereby preventing an injustice to plaintiffs injured by the wrongdoing of others and allowing plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state to recover hedonic damages. Part V reiterates that courts should separate hedonic damages from pain and suffering damages and allow for the recovery of loss of enjoyment of life damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state.

Share

COinS