Damages in Levka v. City of Chicago Based upon the lack of a logical method to calculate damages and a lack of harm that damages can adequately compensate, I have decided not to award the plaintiff any damages.
Economic Damages First, it seems Levka should have been entitled to more traditional damages, and not just pain and suffering damage. The Seventh Circuits opinion presents two different sets of damages she may have deserved. First, she appears to have medical expenses related to the conduct of the officers. So her psychologist bills appear to be an area that possibly deserved damages. Secondly, the Seventh Circuit appears to make a case that she deserved damages for her lost wages from working. While, there is conflicting testimony,…show more content… For example, one district court has noted that if other remedies are available than pain and suffering damages are less important. Rawson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 615 F. Supp. 1546 (D. Colo. 1985). The Seventh Circuit in Levka also seems to follow this logic because the panel essentially holds that damages should correspond to how bad the defendant’s conduct was; not how bad the plaintiff’s injuries were. The goal of compensatory damages should not be to punish, but to return plaintiffs to their rightful…show more content… First, I believe punitive damages may be appropriate if the officers deliberately violated the fourth amendment, which seems likely given precedent at that time. Other courts have found that punitive damages are a solution to remedy this sort of severe emotional harm. Hampton v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc, 247 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2001). For example, in Hampton, the court affirmed a large punitive damage award with a much smaller compensatory damage award. Id. I also believe that statutory damages are more appropriate. For example, in Texas, a statute was enacted that provided special damages for someone who loses a pet. Petco Animals Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster, 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004). I think this is a much better solution, because courts should not be in the business of giving non-objective damages, instead I think the legislature should create remedies that represent societal interest, even if they themselves are not logical in
