well this is just ridiculous. all the same, i still think torts caps are a good idea. i understand the family is distraught, but if the guy doesnt go bankrupt, then his insurance will just be paying out there limit. 8 million dollars to a 70 year old woman will not bring back her brother. In the legal field we call insurance a "loss spreader" because it just spreads the loss out across a class or society as a whole. why spread a huge loss across society when the loss didnt have that large of a monetary impact (not to be hartless).
oh, and tort caps arent just "no one gets more that 500,000" they sets formulas that take into account estimated life earnings, companionship, etc. but they DONT allow a jury to just get pissed and try to give someone 100 mill for there daugther losing a toe.
and lawyers in most states control what percentage they can collect (and most set a 30% max). its the POINT of the american tort system, it allows people who cant afford a lawyer to get their case heard on contingency. The 30% helps to offset the cases that lawyers take for clients and the client loses and the lawyer collects nothing. It also gives incentive for the lawyers to take non frivolous cases...they wont waste money if they cant even maybe win.
just my 2 cents