ok...\n\ni asked a similar question earlier but it was misunderstood. the prinicpal of an eye for an eye is that the person who inflicts the injury will have to pay. in other words it's talking about monetary compensation instead of blood revenge\n\nso in the talmud (a book of commentary on laws) there supposed to be five things a person who injury someone else is supposed to pay.\n\n1. effect on future earnings\n\n2. pain (cost of anesthia for the amputation)\n\n3. medical bills\n\n4. time lost at work\n\n5. embarrassment/ mental anguish\n\nthe last idea is sort of a weird one...\n\nI mean the "mental anguish" can be compared with extra payment for the trauma inflicted, but EMBARRASSMENT? \n\njust want to see your thoughts and reactions.\n\noh and the more you write the more likely i am to choose you for best answer
206175
yeah sorry I did not answer your question very well the last time if you said it was for a davar Torah then it would have been better.\n\nAs for embarrassment or as it is called in the Talmud boshes\n\nit is a general category for things like punitive damages. For example, If you are a political figure and I were to give you a scar across your face it would be an "embarrassment" to you especially in your field. The Talmud quantifies this type of payment by asking how much the individual would have payed to avoid the public or personal embarrassment.\n\nI will try to find more and give you some references
263079
Yeah, but it seems to me you'd be getting hit in the eye a lot, ooo....can you imagine a paper cut there? Ow! It just wouldn't be practical in the long run, too easy to be injured.
620254
I have read your previous question:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao1grVAAeLJuM8JSTcwQYjjsy6IX?qid=20060605193038AA1TtGf\n\nYou are an idiot.  They are doing everything they need to do for you.  The court system is in place for real problems, not for people like you that think you are entitled to everything for no good reason.  Get over it.  They are paying your medical bills and have apologized to you.  You do not deserve any additional money...the bite did not even break the skin!  Because of people like you our court system...and our emergency rooms...are tied up for stupid reasons.  There was no reason for you to go to the ER.  \n\nIf it was possible I would sue you for $5,000 for putting up with your stupidity.  Unfortunately, I'm not a "single mom", so I don't think I would have a case.
300009
I obtained my worst injury at the age of four, when a hot iron fell on me.  I moved out of the way in time to escape a concussion but my my right foot's pinkie toe got burned and the nail got broken off.  I haven't had any worse injuries than that so far and I really hope I don't get any either.  The injury scars might be cool but the pain aint worth it, that goes for all I care about also.
173552
On Christmas Eve many years ago I lost driving in Caracas.  When turning around in a blind alley, I bumped into another car, and when I got out (stupid), four guys got out of the other car and threatened me with a knife and a couple of broken bottles.  Two of them jumped in my car and tried to drive off, but I jumped in the car with them (even more stupid) and I'm punching and kicking these guys while they're trying to drive my car (how stupid is that). My car ended mashing into a tree and the two guys jumped out and fled.  They were so freaked out by this crazy gringo that they even forgot to take my wallet.  \n\nSometime during this fight I felt a sharp pain in my shoulder.  One of the guys had stabbed me ... I don't know if it was with the knife or bottle.  I still have a scar on my shoulder from the incident several stitches ... it was not a wide slice, but it was a couple inches deep.   \n\nAs for how it felt, it was strange.  Other than the initial sharp pain, like being bitten by a large animal, I didn't notice any pain at all during the fight ... I was all adrenaline.   I was more furious than afraid.    Getting stabbed is not like getting hit on the head (I've had three concussions in my life playing soccer) ... you don't lose consciousness at all (unless you get stabbed in the heart or neck, which cuts off blood to the brain).  In fact, the opposite happens ... you start thinking fast and hard.  That's the nature of adrenaline ... you are completely focused on surviving the moment.  You don't have time to assess your damage or go "OMG, I've been stabbed."\n\nBut then afterwards, when these guys had disappeared, and I looked down and noticed my shirt covered in my blood, I suddenly realized I had been stabbed, and I felt a sudden adrenaline chill ... literally cold.  I remember being surprised ... even moreso that it didn't hurt that much despite the amount of blood.  I felt a bit of pain raising my shoulder.  I felt a little bit faint, but I don't think that was from loss of blood as much as just the sudden realization of "Are you nuts?!  What were you thinking?!"  A very strange set of emotions.
537098
The only problem with this form of punishment is it does nothing to remove the mental drive of the perpetrator. He will still have the same thoughts. Maybe a combination, frontal lobotomy and castration, will do the trick, but I can't see any State passing this into law. I'm more in favor of the two strikes and your shot approach. Besides, bullets are so much cheaper than surgery.
494801
There are many possibilities with this question . I will try to list a few .\n1. it will hurt\n2. trauma to the larynx\n3. bleeding\n4. death/exanguinasion due to air way obstruction , and/or drowning on thier own blood \n5. temporarily unconcious due to trauma\n6. choking ,gasping , due to inability to take in proper amounts of air .\nThese are just a few possibilities .\nP.S. That is a strike for life or death situations only.
314664
yes..an eye for an eye...each person should be held responsible for their own action and should be punished/rewarded to what he/she has done to others
389814
Have the hospital submit the bill to your auto insurance carrier (your wife's if it's different). It is still the same accident. And while you could sue the hospital for not getting the glass out I'm fairly sure you wouldn't win. Think about it - your face was covered in blood and glass is clear. They probably couldn't see the glass for the blood and swelling. Just be glad that enough people can pay for health care and insurance (you included if you pay for these things) so that there was someone available to take you to the hospital, check your injuries and then a hospital with a doctor on staff who could treat your injuries. Not every country has such care. \n\nI'm not an advocate of biting the hand that feeds you - on in this case, the hand that treated you.
306893
Unfortunately, no.  It varies.  I say unfortunately because the tort system is the best system in the world. It assigns responsibility to those who cause harm.  In a perfect world each person would be responsible for their own actions. If they caused harm they would pay for the harm caused and then some.  However in some states the insurance industry has lobbied to do away with such laws and call it "no fault."  However in "no fault" states, individuals get less compensation and have no where else to turn.  The law takes away their individual rights.  This is the same in states that have limits on how much you can sue a doctor for when he causes death or injury.  \n\nSome states and many Republicans believe that limits of 250,000 is enough to compensate for the death of a child, stay at home mom, young single adult or elderly person - essentially a non-bread winner.  This places the accent of the law in a group of people who the law sets above everyone else - doctors and their insurance companies guaranteeing them a profit rather than allowing the individual to seek full justice.  Placing the accent on the group (the doctors) means that the government has decided "the greatest good for the greatest number."  \n\nThis is not our American system, but that of Jeramey Bentham. Our County was founded upon Lockes the two tresises of Government, upon Jefferson and Adams - the individual matters.  These days, the individual is only worth 250,000 and unless you help change that then your auto case will be worth nothing too.  \n\nSo sit on juries and make sure that you don't just blame the poor sole who was injuried for suing some company - place the responsibility on the company or person who is the defendant - they are denying responsibility and trying to play you for a fool by blaming the injured party or claiming that he wasn't injured too badly or that his medical costs were too high - rather than accepting responsibility.  As a juror - you are Karma - you make justice.  So vote and serve on a jury and find for the plaintiff.  When awarding damages don't be shy to give full justice not half justice as money is inferior - so give a lot.
541872
Registered Nurse here; Well I dislike the sound of my own advice.  However if your condition is truly a result of blood being drawn, you best avenue is to SUE, this is malpractice, and people in health care must be held accountable when they make mistakes.  As for the physician, he or she should not try to avoid the error and should address it with you open and honestly.  You should not have to pay for any of your surgeries related to this error, nor should your insurance company.  I strongly advise you to seek an attorney that specializes in malpractice.  Also you may want to consider getting another physician, if you feel they are not treating you with dignity, respect and cognitive of care that your entitled to.
610340
Actually, the phrase is not literally referring to the eyes.  The phrase "justice is blind"  refers to the idea that judges and juries should look only at the evidence presented in court when making their decisions.  The term "blind" is a reference to the ideal of those making decisions ignoring what they know about the defendants reputation, personal history, local gossip, news articles, appearance, personal relationship to the judge and/or individual jury members, etc.  \n\nIt dates back to when most people lived in small towns where everyone knew everybody else.  When juries were selected the defendant might often have neighbors, friends, or even relatives who were serving on the Jury.  Even the judge might have been related to the defendant in some way at that time.
247944
Thats a decision to be made with your lawyer. Usually, its how much you feel you should get to cover damages (to the car, and of course, yourself/medical bills) as well as the time away from your child, if you fell you can place a price on that. Your accident lawyer should help you set reasonable goals.
248941
I don't agree with guroo_ray.  Sounds like he thinks that only people with money should be able to seek compensation for harms done to them.  Citizens have the right to file petitions and are able to without a lawyer. Look up "pro se litigancy".  There are books on how to represent yourself in court.  I've done it.
577327
First of all you need to list yourself as an Organ Donor and have that put on your driver's license. MAKE YOUR WISHES KNOWN TO YOUR FAMILY!!! Also, I suggest you write a living will.\nI know 2 people who have benefitted from the surgery and the only complication was the adjustment back to being sighted again, which was easily treated with physical and psychological therapy. Both are very happy with their "new" sight.
401056
ABH is the proper charge where there is  significant injury to another, eg extensive bruising, black eye, cuts requiring medical treatment, broken teeth or psychiatric harm.  It can include the shedding of blood, except that there is an alternative charge of malicious wounding which is intended to cover such an injury.  There is a tendency to be rather flexible about the range of injuries encompassed in the notion of ABH on the part of the CPS to keep the case in the magistrates' court, the idea being to cut down costs. There have been cases of injuries consistent with a charge of GBH being reduced to "ABH" by the CPS, who are anxious to avoid a jury trial, where there is an indication that a guilty plea might be forthcoming, as common assault can only be heard in the Magistrates' Court.  Similarly charges of "ABH" are vert frequently reduced to charges of common assault by prosecutors determined to keep them in the Magistrates' Court.  An offence of assault is tried in the magistrates' court, with a maximum fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. \n\nIf there is a racial element to the assault, the individual may be charged with racially aggravated assault under Section 29 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In the magistrates' court the penalty is the same as for common assault ­ a fine of up to £5,000, six months' imprisonment or both. In the Crown Court the penalty is two years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. \n\nWhere the charge is one of ABH,.The maximum sentence in the magistrates' court is six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 or both. In the Crown Court the maximum sanction is five years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. As above, if the offence is racially aggravated, the sanction is the same in the magistrates' court but goes up to seven years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both in the Crown Court. \n\nAssaults which have more serious physical and mental consequences may be judged to be assaults occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH), eg broken limbs or injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity. The penalties for GBH are severe, with the possibility of life imprisonment if the offence is committed with intent. For GBH without intent, the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment.
541547
Hi Violet.\n\nWhat area of tort were you reading about? I don't have this particular book as it is too far out of date.\n\nThere must be some context in which importance was attached to what was said, perhaps a reference to some precident or case?