Prompt Do you believe there should be a limit or cap on the amount of damages awarded to a plaintiff in a tort case? Why or why not? Be specific.

Submission Our discussions are a valuable opportunity to have thoughtful conversations regarding a specific topic. You are required to provide a comprehensive initial post with 34 well-developed paragraphs that include a topic sentence and at least 35 supporting sentences with additional details, explanations, and examples. In addition, you are required to respond substantively to the initial posts of at least two other classmates on two different days. All posts should be reflective and well written, meaning free of errors in grammar, sentence structure, and other mechanics.

For a plaintiff to win a tort case, she must allege and prove that she was injured. The fear that she might be injured in the future is not a sufficient basis for a suit. This rule has proved troublesome in medical malpractice and industrial disease cases. A doctors negligent act or a companys negligent exposure of a worker to some form of contamination might not become manifest in the body for years. In the meantime, the tort statute of limitations might have run out, barring the victim from suing at all. An increasing number of courts have eased the plaintiffs predicament by ruling that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim discovers that she has been injured or contracted a disease.

The law allows an exception to the general rule that damages must be shown when the plaintiff stands in danger of immediate injury from a hazardous activity. If you discover your neighbor experimenting with explosives in his basement, you could bring suit to enjoin him from further experimentation, even though he has not yet blown up his houseand yours.