How to Calculate Loss of Quality of Life?

The biggest part of a personal injury case is almost always loss of quality of life.

But there are no rules for how that loss should be measured by juries.

So a big question in every case is what’s the best way to measure loss of quality of life?

Here are some of the arguments I’ve made:

1. Loss of quality of life is calculated based on a ratio to treatment expenses. It’s like an iceberg.

The treatment expenses are what you can see. The non-economic damages are like the part of the iceberg below the surface. They can’t be measured as easily.

But you know the ratio: 10 percent is above the waterline. And 90 percent is below.

That’s exactly how it should work in personal injury cases. The treatment expenses are 10 percent of the total. The loss in terms of quality of life is 90 percent of the total. That’s nine times the treatment expenses.

If the treatment expenses are $100,000, the loss of quality of life is $900,000.

This obviously works better for some cases than others. In some cases it under-valued the loss of quality of life. In other cases it over-values loss of quality of life.

2. How much would it take for Bob to ________________________?

For example, how much someone would have to pay Bob before he’d agree to have his leg amputated?

But before you answer, let me provide some more specifics. The amputation isn’t going to be surgical. And it isn’t going to be performed under anesthesia. It’s going to be amputated by the bumper of a pickup. And Bob is going to have to lay prone in the middle of a busy road while cars zoom past and blood pools around what’s left of his leg.

How big would the check have to be for Bob to say “yes” to that deal?

(This can be tricky because people can have dramatically different pricing than we do. When I was in college I drank a quart of ranch dressing for $20. I wouldn’t drink it for that today. And I’m sure there are some people who would agree to give up a limb for something ridiculous like $300,000.)

3. Bob has a life expectancy of 20 years. Out of those 20 years probably 17 would have been good ones.

(The last three years of life would have been relatively low quality. Even if Bob hadn’t been in the wreck, he wouldn’t have been doing anything super-active during those last three years anyway. So we’re focusing on the next 17 years.)

Bob hasn’t been able to fish or hunt since the wreck. Even if Bob’s back gets a little bit better, he won’t be able to fish or hunt like he could before the wreck.

Bob deserves at least $100,000 a year for losing the two things that he really enjoyed.

Two things: Which of these resonated most with you? And, let me know if you have other ideas about how loss of quality of life should be calculated.