What you described as compensation I would describe as adding insult to injury.
So, it's always a messy business trying to compensate someone for their health.
True, but that's irrelevant. My life is worth more to me than any comapny could pay, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't expect recompense if the company poisoned me to death. I would want to enjoy my final days in as little suffering as possible and leave something behind for whoever I might care about.
The fact is, that by making them ill you have effectively ended their life. It's manslaughter, perhaps even murder, and you have prevented them from working to support their family.
If you're going to live the remainder of your life in suffering I would bloody well hope the parties responsible start emptying their pockets for you and your family.
I can't believe I'm actually having to defend the concept of compensation from a company that poisoned someone to death. I know HN has a serious case of corporate sycophancy but this is on another level.
Since it's impossible to compensate someone fairly when looking at it from the value of a human life, I'm wondering if there isn't another way to calculate these settlements where the end goal is still the same: 1) provide a generous payment to the victims and 2) create a financial deterrent string enough for the offending company to stop and repair their actions and prevent any other companies from thinking of doing the same thing.
For #1, $10M, $100M, $1B, $10B, $100B, etc. are never enough for anyone that enjoys their life and their health. I just think it's worth considering how quickly we could create 2,000 lawsuit billionaires if the formula is $1B per terminal illness. Maybe that's a good thing for the 1% to be comprised of the descendants of victims who might spend their money in a conscious way, but I think $1B is such a rare, difficult thing to achieve and creates tremendous power that it's worth thinking about. Because why not give them $5B or $100B or make them the richest individuals on the planet? It still wouldn't be a fair deal for getting cancer.
For #2, I'm simply suggesting that we should consider paying some portion of the penalty to a hospital, charity, competitor, etc.
If you'd rather the $2B goes to the victim and another $2B goes to cancer research, ok. Or $2B to the victims and $2B to a competitor that could have sold more product had they not been undercut by cheap, cancer-causing products, that's fine too.
I just think society as a whole would benefit if we put some of the money into repairing the situation rather than only compensating the victim.
In the process of creating damages that dissuade companies from damaging behavior, we're also creating people with immense power (if they ever collect).
I could see a $2B amount making sense if the couple controlled a multi million dollar company that failed because they fell ill from cancer.
But otherwise, wouldn't it make sense to pay the victims some multiple of their average annual income for life plus health care costs and send the rest to a charity or hospital?
That would still generate a $2B verdict as a deterrent, but would also limit people from obtaining massive wealth without creating value.