Noneconomic damages; prohibiting party from referencing noneconomic damages to jury in certain actions. Effective date.
Impact
The implications of SB1751 are significant, as it alters established practices in court proceedings related to how juries assess damages. By removing specific monetary references, the bill aims to encourage juries to base their awards purely on the evidence presented rather than any monetary suggestions from parties involved in litigation. This change may result in more subjective and varied jury awards since jurors will rely on their interpretations of the evidence rather than suggested figures, potentially leading to variability in awards across similar cases.
Summary
Senate Bill 1751 introduces amendments to the way noneconomic damages can be referenced during civil litigation in Oklahoma. Specifically, the bill stipulates that in trials concerning the breach of obligations not arising from contracts, parties are prohibited from seeking, referencing, or suggesting specific dollar amounts or ranges for noneconomic damages to the jury. The intention behind this legislation is to shape how juries evaluate and award noneconomic damages by eliminating potential biases linked to quantitative suggestions from counsel.
Sentiment
The sentiment around SB1751 appears to be divided among legal professionals and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that this bill will lead to more fair and unbiased jury decisions, preventing manipulation of jury awards through specific monetary recommendations. Conversely, critics express concern that removing these references could disadvantage plaintiffs, as it may make it more challenging to accurately convey the impact of their injuries to juries, thus possibly leading to inadequate compensation for noneconomic damages.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding SB1751 include its potential effects on the rights of litigants in personal injury and related cases. Opponents are worried that without clear, quantifiable guidelines for noneconomic damages, juries may struggle to understand the true extent of a plaintiff's suffering and emotional distress, leading to lower awards. This debate centers on balancing the desire for impartiality in jury decisions against the importance of ensuring just compensation for individuals who have suffered harm.