PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Med mal "loss of a chance", cont'd



Regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court's recent unilateral liberalization of the doctrine, one of the same questions I keep asking also bothers Anthony Sebok: why are less-than-even probabilities supposed to be taken into account for the purposes of increasing recoveries, but never for reducing them? Thus a 49 cent likelihood of negligent harm will now pay off at 49 cents on the dollar, while a 51 percent likelihood will pay off not at 51 cents, but at 100, as before. Awfully convenient, that, no?

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.