I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed).
The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down
her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a
pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if
so, how much might you get?

"John Seeliger" <jseelige@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bk8sqh$pt4bm$1@ID-146094.news.uni-berlin.de... I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if so, how much might you get?

Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank
pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover
original loss.
seek punative damages
I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that.... :)

"Mike J" <brownTiger@yahoo.stopthespam> wrote in message
news:JtY9b.91912$mp.41396@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.ne t... "John Seeliger" <jseelige@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bk8sqh$pt4bm$1@ID-146094.news.uni-berlin.de... I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing
down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and
if so, how much might you get? Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover original loss.

No, but since this is not a priority case for the police, the guy might
never be prosecuted (even though he was caught on tape at Target using one
of the credit cards and the security gaurd got his licence plate #), so this
would just be something to dissuade him from doing this again.
seek punative damages I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that.... :)

I see the smiley, but I don't get the joke. I remember when the People's
Court was in California, people got, from time to time, punitive damages.

Then again, you never know where the Texas legislature will set non-economic
damages in pickpocket cases with its new found power. :)

John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent

John Seeliger wrote:
John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent

Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest
beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the
ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral
upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees
and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.

BTW, what does "Republican" have to do with it?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F68D3C1.1466A3C8@worldnet.att.net... John Seeliger wrote: John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.

For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not
just medical. Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. It
doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. Does $250 K seem a
fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
BTW, what does "Republican" have to do with it?

Not a lot, in this case. The opponents came from diverse groups, such as
the Eagle Forum and the NAACP, but I mentioned it because the leading
proponent was Gov. Perry himself.

John Seeliger wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: John Seeliger wrote:
John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical.

But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't
worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact
percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%. Why do
you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise
suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.
Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.

Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going to
have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has his
licence.
It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.

It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury
awards.
Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering.

To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs, as
well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive
that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus
some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?
Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?

Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No
amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done. But
greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving
survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why
should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F690C3D.CEEF3EC0@worldnet.att.net... John Seeliger wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: John Seeliger wrote:> John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the
biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to
spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical
fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.

Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you
bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon between
doctors and lawyers. Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not
lawyers, it nullifies that theory.
For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical. But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the
exact percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%.

If you have so much distrust in lawyers, why do you favor giving them such
power? At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many
high-powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature,
buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does.

Why do you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.

I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was passed to
ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional.
Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going
to have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has
his licence.

I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point?
It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the
incentive. It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards.

Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all
Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were
successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits
were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that
this would apply to anyway.
Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs,
as well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively
expensive that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?

I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem.
Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness? Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million.
No amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done.
But greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So
why should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?

By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all? So
what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you money
won't take that away.

Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the
invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for the
worst types of injuries. Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and
make the tough decision of deciding what the caps on different types of
indivual injuries should be. How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm?
Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc. But to cap all
damages without considering individual injuries seems to me to be wrong.

John Seeliger wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: John Seeliger wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> John Seeliger wrote:
>> John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
> Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest> beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the> ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to> spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher> medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon between doctors and lawyers.

What makes you think that it's a lie?
Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not lawyers, it nullifies that theory.

The airwaves over Texas were covered with ads for and against it, were they
not? And virtually all of the ads for it claimed to be financed by some
"public interest" group. But a little investigation will reveal that these
"public interest" groups are actually lawyers.
For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, not just medical.
But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I wouldn't worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over 50%.
If you have so much distrust in lawyers,

I don't distrust lawyers, it's just the ambulance-chasers amongst them that I
don't like.
why do you favor giving them such power?

What power?
At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many high- powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature, buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does.

Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It's human
nature, you're not going to change it. The best you can hope for is to
design a system that keeps these factors in check.
Why do you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their own.
I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was passed to ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional.

Don't count on that. Where are California Props 187 and 209 today?
Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors.
Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is going to have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he still has his licence.
I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point?

Not handy. But any doctor who is convicted of a serious case of malpractise
is going to have his ticket pulled.
It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.
It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards.
Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that this would apply to anyway.

The morons who sit on juries these days have the attitude, "oh well, it's
only the insurance company's money anway". But where does the insurance
company get its money, except from you and me?
Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering.
To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical costs, as well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the state? And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in Texas?
I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem.

But the lack of a cap on non-economic damages is certain to exacerbate it.
Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?
Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been done. But greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot?
By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all?

Good point. You're right, why should they? I can't think of a good reason.
So what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you money won't take that away.

It certainly won't.
Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for the worst types of injuries.

But who is paying the money? The negligent doctor who caused the injury, or
all those who have to pay more to buy health insurance?
Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and make the tough decision of deciding what the caps on different types of indivual injuries should be.

Why not $0, as you suggested above?
How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm? Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc.

How can you put a price on any of these?
But to cap all damages without considering individual injuries seems to me to be wrong.

While forcing me, as a customer of health insurance, to pay for it isn't?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F692C39.E728668A@worldnet.att.net... John Seeliger wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: John Seeliger wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> John Seeliger wrote:>>> John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent>> Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the
biggest>> beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly
the>> ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to>> spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher>> medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it
passed. Forgot to mention that your initial question seems to indicate that you bought into the lie that Prop 12 was the great battle of Armegeddon
between doctors and lawyers. What makes you think that it's a lie?

Because many people who are not lawyers (such as myself, as you pointed out)
or had any economic interest in it, strongly opposed it
Since 49% voted agains it, and many of them were not lawyers, it
nullifies that theory. The airwaves over Texas were covered with ads for and against it, were
they not? And virtually all of the ads for it claimed to be financed by some "public interest" group. But a little investigation will reveal that
these "public interest" groups are actually lawyers.

Yes, but how do you account for the voters, themselves?
> For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of
lawsuit,> not just medical. But given that a majority of legislators are usually attorneys, I
wouldn't worry too much about this. (Or rather I would.) I don't know what the exact percentage is in Texas, but I'm almost certain it is well over
50%. If you have so much distrust in lawyers, I don't distrust lawyers, it's just the ambulance-chasers amongst them
that I don't like. why do you favor giving them such power? What power?

The power to decide what types of lawsuits are worthy of caps and which are
not. Then again, you seem to think the real problem is excessive awards, do
I wonder why you say "Or rather I would [worry too much about this]"? If
they pass caps, it would be what you want, right? And if they don't, then
we are no worse off (excessive-judgement-wise) than if Prop 12 hadn't
passed.
At least in a courtroom, a numerical advantage (i.e. buying many high- powered attorneys) doesn't gaurantee success. But in the legislature, buying off enough Representative and Senator plus the Govenernor does. Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It's human nature, you're not going to change it. The best you can hope for is to design a system that keeps these factors in check.

So, how does putting the Legislature in charge of it help? At least money
plantiffs and defendants in a courtroom spend on attorneys doesn't go to the
decsionmakers (i.e. judges and juries), whereas money special interests
spend does go to the politcal campaigns of the Legislatures.
Why do you think they had to go the Prop route with regard to medical malpractise suits? Because the legislature wouldn't do it on their
own. I am not an expert as to Constituional law, but AIUI, the Prop was
passed to ensure that legislation wouldn't be ruled unconstituional. Don't count on that. Where are California Props 187 and 209 today?

Sorry, I don't know enough about that to comment.
> Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. Not very much. How many patients do you think a negligent doctor is
going to have after being successfully sued for malpractise? If even he
still has his licence. I wouldn't know. Do you have stats to prove your point? Not handy. But any doctor who is convicted of a serious case of
malpractise is going to have his ticket pulled.

Will the doctor at Duke Medical Center who gave the girl organs with a
mismatched blood type have his ticket pulled? Since I have heard cases of
persons posing as doctors with false credentials going from hospital to
hospital, with the new hospital not knowing of the firing from a former
hospital because of false credentials. If non-doctors can get away with
that, how much more easily would a real doctor be able to hide his or her
past?

I don't normally read tx.politcs, but when you cross-posted there, I found a
thread "Re: Houston's FINAL RALLY AGAINST PROP 12!" in which some says:

<<Furthermore this $250,000 cap limits the deterrence effect where large
corporations are involved or where the offender is partially shielded
from damages by his insurance. If a doctor recklessly screws someone's
health up and the jury levies low punitive damages, he only ends up
paying higher insurance premiums while his insurance company pickes up
the punitive damages. So instead the jury raises the punitive damages
to exceed the upper limit of his insurance plus the amount the
physician ought to be made to suffer. This is hard on insurance
companies so instead of capping punitive damages, some states now
allow juries to levy punitive damages directly on the offender and
preclude his insuror from compensating him.>>

A good point. Suppose a hospital with millions of dollars decides it is
worth it to keep a doctor on with the risk of a $250K + economic damages
lawsuit. Maybe had the suit been millions more, they would have gotten rid
of the negligent doctors sooner. $250 K isn't really a lot of money
compared to running a hospital or maybe even the cost of educating a doctor
or hiring a doctor.
> It doesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the
incentive. It's not frivolous lawsuits that are the problem -- it's excessive jury awards. Then why did proponents always want to point out that some 50-60% of all Texas doctors have been sued and that only 15% of these suits were successful? I NEVER, NEVER heard them say what percentage of these lawsuits were for non-economic damages above $250 K, which are the only cases that this would apply to anyway. The morons who sit on juries these days have the attitude, "oh well, it's only the insurance company's money anway". But where does the insurance company get its money, except from you and me?

What does that have to do with my point? As I said, proponents often talked
about how often doctors are unsuccessfully sued, but never did I hear them
say what percentage of frivolous lawsuits was going to be stopped by Prop
12.
> Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. To the extent that you would rather pay significanly more medical
costs, as well as have medical malpractise insurance become so prohibitively expensive that some doctors would have no recourse but to leave the
state? And thus some forms of treatment would be completely unavailable in
Texas? I am not convinced that Prop 12 will really fix the problem. But the lack of a cap on non-economic damages is certain to exacerbate it.> Does $250 K seem a fair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis,
or> blindness? Yes it is. Or rather, no it isn't. But then, neither is $250 million. No amount of money is going to make up for whatever damage has been
done. But greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers turn the injured party -- or the grieving survivors -- into gold-diggers at the expense of the rest of society. So why should suffering some great tragedy become a chance to hit the jackpot? By that logic, why even award damages for pain and suffering at all? Good point. You're right, why should they? I can't think of a good
reason.

Because it would be inhumane to not compensate someone for an injury simply
because they had little or no economic loss from it. Or to only compensate
them for the economic portion of what they lost, and not the intangible
aspect of it. It would also not serve to punish the perpetrater of the
injury.
So what? So you suffered. We can't take that back and awarding you
money won't take that away. It certainly won't. Pain and suffering awards should in some way mitigate the suffering the invidual experienced and $250 K would not provide enough mitigation for
the worst types of injuries. But who is paying the money? The negligent doctor who caused the injury,
or all those who have to pay more to buy health insurance?

If the purpose was punitive, it wouldn't serve much purpose to punish
insurers, unless they had reason to believe the doctor was negligent at the
time they wrote his or her policy, but from the standpoint of compensating
the victim, saying to him or her, "You have suffered a lot. You deserve
something for what you have gone through", it would have a purpose.

Furthermore, it would make the insurance company drop the doctor, which
might not happen with a sufficiently low award. Also, the idea above about
requiring doctors themselves the pay punitive awards, though they don't
likely have the money to do so, would serve the purpose of holding doctors
personally accountable and force doctors who are negligent to considering
getting out of the profession before the hurt someone in the first place.
Perhaps the legislature should just sit down and make the tough decision
of deciding what the caps on different types of indivual injuries should
be. Why not $0, as you suggested above?

Again, inhumane. Furthermore, if we don't allow people to sue on the basis
of non-economic injuries, why let them sue on the basis of economic
injuries? Why not just say, "Your injury makes it impossible to do your
job, costing you money. Tough luck. Life is unfair." That is your
attitude to non-economic, so why not economic damages?
How much is a broken leg worth? Broken arm? Severe burn? Paralisys? Blindness? Amputation. Etc. How can you put a price on any of these?

The number would be arbitrary, but so are many things legislators decide.
But to cap all damages without considering individual injuries seems to
me to be wrong. While forcing me, as a customer of health insurance, to pay for it isn't?

When I was still undecided on Prop 12, though leaning that way because I
don't support caps, in principle, an opposition group called and one of the
things they saud is that Prop 12 won't make your insurance go down or won't
keep it from going up. I tend to believe them. Insurance companies are
greedy and I have heard about how they keep raising rates even though their
profits are increasing. That is the place to cut.

I have not been to the doctor (excluding dentist/oral surgeon, which are not
covered by my plan) in several years, nor had more than about 2 or 3
prescriptions charged to my insurance, but Unicare, with whom I have been
for over 3 years keeps raising my rates (forcing me to change plans with a
larger deductable) about every 6 months. They just raised my rates from
82/mo to 97/mo, which is outragous (since it was the second or third
increase in a year), but I think this is a matter of insurance greed masking
the problem by blaming lawsuits.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:15:50 -0500, "John Seeliger" <jseelige@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:3F68D3C1.1466A3C8@worldnet.att.net... John Seeliger wrote:
John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent
Why were you against it? Obviously you're not a lawyer, and the biggest beneficiaries of its failure would have been lawyers (particularly the ambulance chasers). Malpractice insurance would have continued to spiral upwards, and YOU would have paid for it in the form of higher medical fees and health insurance. Count your blessings that it passed.
For one thing, because it allows legislators to cap any type of lawsuit, notjust medical. Also, as was pointed out, it protects negligent doctors. Itdoesn't really prevent frivolous lawsuits, just reduces the incentive.

Actually, while demagogues through around the phrase "frivolous lawsuits," the
examples they use are generally of large awards. Since legislators draft laws
and are often lawyers themselves, they can not be unaware of the fact that
lawsuits which result in large judgments are by definition NOT frivolous.

Strengthening Rule 11 penalties would punish frivolous lawsuits. Putting a cap
on legitimate awards is not. It is yet another example of the trend of the
legislature to attempt to destroy the independent judiciary, that is to say, to
destroy the very basis of the "law and order" they claim they support.
Furthermore, I am against caps on pain and suffering. Does $250 K seem afair amount for let's say a lifetime of paralysis, or blindness?

No. It seems like a sick joke, but it is a sick joke that is being advertised
heavily using your tax dollars. The legislators pushing this are pawns of Big
Business, Big Insurance, Big Pharm. Their interest is in the campaign donations
from their owners.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

John wrote:
I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if so, how much might you get?

The average street pickpocket is after the cash. He'll ditch the wallet in a
mailbox somehwere. Chances are you'll get it back in a few months.
Without any real proof as to seeing the crime being committed by that
person, the burden is on you to prove that the defendant did the deed. He
doesn't have to do a damn thing.
Usually, they work in pairs. One does the taking, then quickly passes it to
his buddy. IF the PP is caught, he has no evidence.
Sometimes there will be a group. The prize could be passed between all of
them just to throw off the watching cops.
That's why PP is a hard case to prove. The only way to do that is to have a
video of the event capturing the PP's hand in the till.

If you carry your wallet in your back pocket, you're only asking for
trouble.
I carry mine in the front pocket. Since the pockets are deeper in front, it
makes picking that much more difficult.

If you take the PP to court, be sure you can prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt or he could turn around and sue you.

John wrote:
"Mike J" <brownTiger@yahoo.stopthespam> wrote in message news:JtY9b.91912$mp.41396@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.ne t...
"John Seeliger" <jseelige@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bk8sqh$pt4bm$1@ID-146094.news.uni-berlin.de... I have a relative who was recently pickpocketed (or rather pick pursed). The amount of cash was not too great, but the inconvience of closing down her credit card and bank account was. Under Texas law, if you sued a pick-pocket in small claims court, could you seek punative damages, and if so, how much might you get?
Just a question, do you think someone who has lots of money in the bank pickpocketed your relative? In most cases you would be lucky to recover original loss.
No, but since this is not a priority case for the police, the guy might never be prosecuted (even though he was caught on tape at Target using one of the credit cards and the security gaurd got his licence plate #), so this would just be something to dissuade him from doing this again.

In that case, you can sue him for the theft of the card, as well as file
criminal charges.
Call the security guard to court as a witness. Have the store hold the tape
for evidence.



seek punative damages I think you mean punitive, and you need a California jury for that.... :)
I see the smiley, but I don't get the joke. I remember when the People's Court was in California, people got, from time to time, punitive damages.

:) as in california courts are known to award high damages for the least of
things.
Such as a cal. jury awarding $28billion to a woman for suffering from
asbestos.
Or $10 million to the woman who spilled coffee on herself in the mcdonalds.
Whatever it was. The judge reduced it to below a million.


Then again, you never know where the Texas legislature will set non-economic damages in pickpocket cases with its new found power. :)

And just how do you suppose the pickpocket is going to wind up paying the
damages awarded eh?


John <--- Republican Prop 12 opponent