Definition of a Cap Court
A cap court, in terms of law, refers to a limit on the amount of damages or compensation that an individual can recover in a lawsuit. Such caps are commonly put in place for different types of damages, usually those classified as non-economic, such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. An example of a cap court, in an auto accident case, means the jury determines that the defendant is responsible for $100,000 in damages, but the cap has been said to be $20,000, which is the highest amount of compensation a plaintiff can recover , no matter what the costs.
Some states not only implement a cap but also a cap court on the number of times an individual can recover for the same type of damages in one case. Medical malpractice examples often illustrate this type of cap court as one that limits compensation in this area over the course of all future medical issues. Some courts only allow one recovery of medical costs for all future medical care and not more than what is necessary by Florida laws.
An important factor of a capcourt is that law varies from one state to another. Some states have statutes that place a cap court on the amount or limit recovery for a specific type of damages. Other states place no cap limits on the amount of recovery in one case. One example of these is Florida medical negligence cases that can include future medical needs. Courts in the state have been known to uphold caps for past and future economic costs, but not limit non-economic such as pain and suffering. Other courts, such as New York, have invalidated caps for any type of damages, saying it violates the plaintiff’s right for full compensation for injuries.
History of Cap Court
Historically, combine/cap courts, where evidence is presented to a judicial officer (typically a Justice of the Peace) rather than a jury, have been used as a means to expedite the disposition of criminal cases. Over time, the use of cap court in felony cases has been greatly reduced and limited to particular types of cases in certain jurisdictions. The statewide utilization of cap court in misdemeanor cases remained strong for many years but in 2002 the Legislature began to limit the type of misdemeanor cases which could be resolved in cap court in those states having them. Significant statutory changes occurred in the years immediately prior to the adoption of navy blue caps.
In 1998 the Legislature made significant changes to cap court venues. The compelling reason for the changes was to reduce the number of criminal cases tried in rural counties. In essence, the Legislature provided that misdemeanor trials may only be held in larger cities and that the State’s right to impose incarceration for an offense should not turn upon a defendant’s arrest in a rural community. The Legislature also decided that the defendant’s place of trial should not depend upon the choice between retaining an attorney from the public defender or having trial in the County’s cap court. Hence, to maintain some uniformity in access to cap court, a defendant in a larger city whose offense did not require trial in a cap court could file an "Affidavit of Non-Site." By filing such an affidavit, the person did not waive the right to use a public defender but was still able to resolve his or her charge in cap court.
Concurrent with the tightening of venue, in 2000 the Legislature mandated that defendants should have the right to terminate their attorneys. A defendant may terminate his or her counsel at any time subject to a "good cause" requirement. Section 19-821B(3) sets forth particular disqualifying conditions that may require the appointment of new counsel including, "such as a violation of the defendant’s rights as established by the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution, or, misrepresentation made by counsel concerning the defendant’s rights as established by the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution."
Cap court proceedings, traditionally rolling in nature, co-existed with Idaho’s creation of the "holding courtroom," a confined or secured area of the courthouse where the affected parties in certain types of criminal matters met with a judge, magistrate or other judicial officer without the public being present. This practice enhanced the efficiency of docket control and disposition of lesser offenses while providing for maximum procedural and substantive due process. In July 2002 the Legislature mandated that cap court cases should be held in the "holding courtrooms."
A short-lived experiment commenced on May 1, 2004 when the Idaho Judiciary introduced the navy blue cap court. Acknowledging the law and order needs of many jurisdictions, the navy blue cap was designed for use in special circumstances, i.e., capital felony cases, domestic violence cases, cases where the state was seeking incarceration and in special drug courts. The navy blue cap was intended to fulfill the need to reference cap court proceedings but without the need for the attendant connotation of entering a jail or correction center. However, by December 2004, the navy blue cap had been retired, leaving only the short-lived cap court enrolee, i.e., orange cap court.
Primary Functions of Cap Court in Present-Day
Cap Court in the contemporary legal environment usually hears and decides the following types of matters:
- Basic Agreements: Usually, the procedure to be followed in cap court when opinions are expressed conflictingly in relation to a proposed transaction or related matter is along the lines described below. The court is informed of the basic deal. It then requests an explanation about the proposed transaction – both its merits and the nature of the differing opinions. The parties who have opposing views must then explain the essence of their respective positions and inform the cap court of the legal principles which they believe to be applicable so that the court can decide whether the transaction presents any potential problem capable of being resolved in some manner. However, the cap court does not regard itself as an appellate tribunal exercising an appeal or review jurisdiction in relation to the whole proposed transaction. Rather, its concern is simply to establish whether there is a legal impediment to the transaction. The parties’ differences may relate to how specific legal principles apply to factual circumstances giving rise to the transaction. If necessary, the cap court may consider appointing its own legal adviser to assist it in resolving difficult legal issues.
- Large scale transactions: A variation of the foregoing is that the parties may seek cap court approval to give its blessing for a large scale transaction. In such a case, the parties to the proposed transaction approach the court seeking its imprimatur in relation to interpretational issues arising from the transaction and possibly also to the fairness of the terms upon which the transaction is agreed. Both shareholders (who may need to act by special resolution to approve the transaction) and company management can apply to cap court for relief in this regard and for the appointment of an expert consultant to opine on the terms of the transaction if disputes so warrant.
- Translations: There are many situations where documents are issued in a foreign language. To have greater certainty, translations of these documents are sought in English or other languages. The issue is whether the translation is accurate and correctly reflects the original document. In such circumstances, each litigant is entitled to present translations in its favour. These translations are presented to cap court for acceptance. The court will then rule on the accurate, correct and relevant translation, taking into account the views of each litigant.
- Commercial disputes: Some commercial disputes may arise in the ordinary course of business or transactions between private parties. Such disputes may involve cross border and multi jurisdictional issues or be governed by treaties, statutes or regulations. It may be necessary for the parties to produce their contracts and supporting documentation to clarify issues arising in the course of the litigation. The parties may require the authority of cap court to accept that all such production and inspections be made without the need to obtain the nolo contendre approval of the court. In this instance, both parties will benefit from the authority of cap court.
Legal Significance of Cap Court Decisions
The rulings made by a cap court have the potential to significantly impact the course of a particular case, including its ability to proceed through trial. A cap court is vested with the ability to make dispositive rulings with respect to issues that may be dispositive of a conflicting issue in the motion. Unlike a final adjudication, such as a final judgment, which renders a decision on the merits of the case, a dispositive finding merely resolves an issue sufficient to act as a legal exclusion of one or more elements in a case. As a consequence, the ruling has the effect of decreasing the number of issues that need to be resolved at trial, but only eliminates issues that would be determinative of the motion itself, rather than any other issues, such as potential claims for damages or the liability of one or more defendants.
Following a dispositive finding, the department then holds a hearing on what amount of damages should be awarded. At this hearing, the department’s decision often allows it to award either less, the same, or even more than was previously offered by the defendant to settle the case. If the department decides to award less than was offered, the case proceeds as though the offer had never been made and the defendant is not entitled to an award of costs (and even possibly attorneys’ fees), unless the department’s award is less than 10 percent, in which case costs can still be awarded. On the other hand, if the department decides to award an amount equal to or greater than what was offered, the defendant will then be awarded costs, but not attorneys’ fees, which are awarded only to the department and the claimant. Of note is the possibility that the department could decide to award more than was offered by the defendant. In most instances, the amount of an award will be the same, or less, than the offer. Although there are no cases that address the situation in detail, arguably, if the department awards more than what the defendant previously offered, the amount of the award could function as a settlement offer, assuming that it was even made in good faith and otherwise compliant with the law on settlement offers (which because of these factors is rarely the case). It would be interesting to see how a court would interpret whether a deposit to department would be considered a full and final settlement. It is possible that the department’s award is considered equivalent to a settlement agreement made under section 766.106, which would after 90-days become final and binding on the department and entitled to the same enforcement mechanisms and benefits (e.g. Parks v. Watson, 6 Cal.4th 24 (1991)). Provided that the department’s award considered by the court to be a judgment, a judgment for the excess amount is considered obtained by the plaintiff with "sufficient evidence to support the award." Any subsequent judgment, filed within 30 days after entry of the original judgment, can be said to relate back to the date of the original judgment, and is excluded from the requirements of part 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with motions to set aside.
Important Cap Court Cases
There have been many noteworthy cap court cases over the years. While most have been handled in lower level courts and few ever see the light of day, there are some cap court cases that are so significant they have affected current law and future cases. Most of these cap court cases have had some relation to caps imposed on damages.
For example, the first cap court case we will discuss is Smith v. Farr. This cap court case received so much press it is still a staple in Tort Law classes in many law schools throughout the United States.
In the early nineties a tumor was misdiagnosed by a doctor. Unfortunately for the plaintiff the tumor grew near his spinal cord and instead of a relatively simple treatment the plaintiff needed major surgery. To compound the problem the plaintiff lost the use of one of his arms and one of his legs during surgery and underwent years of painful rehabilitation treatments. A jury award of $1.3 million in medical costs and pain and suffering was reduced by the court to $1.5 million, the maximum possible under the cap. The $1.5 million was further reduced to $900,000 under the statute of limitations .
Another important cap court case is Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, LLC. In this cap court case, quite possibly more than any other cap court case has contributed to the understanding of liability in Indiana. In a landmark decision the Indiana Court of Appeals found that the Indiana state legislature was over-reaching in its decision to limit causes of action and damages for liability. The Court of Appeals found that the caps were unconstitutional as placed on the plaintiff. In order for an injury to be sufficient to offset a statutory cap it must directly result from the accident. Congruently, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that physical and emotional injuries are inseparable by nature. As a result those two injuries may not be separated for the purpose of determining damages. This damage cap court case has become a well-known case in personal injury and tort law for its application of damages based on the resulting variable injury of an accident. This cap court case has also been referenced in many States throughout the United States, creating a fundamental shift in personal injury cases.
Meaning of Cap Court Proceedings
In a cap court hearing, you will usually check in with the downstairs clerk. If there is a checklist, you bring that down and they will tell you where to line up in the courtroom. There is usually a line for out of town lawyers, people who have been appointed and then there is a pending case line. So everyone lines up in a line behind a number of other categories of people waiting to hear the judge in the cap court. In the cap court, you first come into contact with the judge and they will look you over and see if you can remember the script of what to say. They ask if you heard it, so you say yes. It is kinda like an audition. Most people have heard what the cap system is about, pay a little money and you get a reduction in your traffic ticket. The cap judge at the courthouse where I defend people usually is lenient on the people that are lined up in front of the courtroom. Whereas this is not the case in probably other courts. Each courthouse has different procedures so it is important that you check in with the clerk on the specific procedure in the cap court you are expected to appear in. We have been to most of the courts in the Atlanta area, so we generally know what the procedures are. But its always good to double-check the particular court’s procedures for the cap court. In a cap court if you go to a lot of amnesty programs, the judge may be a little bit harsher on you and a harsher than they would be first-time offender. The judge may even ask if you like to pay your taxes. They don’t necessarily have to go with the Script twenty-three times. The more you go to the cap court the judge may realize that you are manipulating the system and may not want to do the cap. Its very important to have an attorney and an advocate there at the cap court.
Contrast between Cap Court and other Courts
When comparing a cap court with other courts, various distinctions can be highlighted. For instance, while a cap court may focus primarily on capping the monetary compensation benefits that a claimant can obtain by means of a court decision and/or by means of mediation or settlement, an example of another body is an "injury court", which focuses on the basic legal principles governing the compensation for work-related injury whether it is physical or psychological. In some cases, the result may in fact be the same then, but the focus on injury courts is not limited to monetary awarding; it also extends to discussing specific questions of injury law.
There are also other types of courts that may be compared with a cap court. For instance, there are courts whose main function is to review the work done by other decision bodies such as medical assessors. That is, since medical assessors make various decisions or evaluate complex neurosurgical injuries, the courts have their judges review the decisions made by the medical assessors to ensure that judges are capable of overruling the medical assessors in certain cases. As a result of reviewing the decision made by medical assessors, the judges may also be asked to review the reasons that were given for such decisions. The main purpose of reviewing the decisions made by medical assessors is to ensure that such decisions are valid, objective, and reasonable.
Compared to all of these courts, a cap court is quite focused and more specific in its function. In fact, a cap court is more concerned with the question of monetary benefits relating to capping and what liability there is from common law to be covered depending on different parties involved.
Humour and Critiques of Cap Court
The general public tends to view cap court with a neutral eye, aware of its existence but without the depth of understanding on what its purposes are. In general public perception, small claims courts are seen as beneficial to those individuals who cannot afford to engage in lengthy litigation with high lawyer’s fees. Critics primarily take issue with how small claims courts have been perceived to discriminate against the poor , as well as racial minorities. Another criticism levied against the small claims courts system in general is that the mandatory aspect would force parties who may not be as financially encumbered into paying the high fees to file a case in a higher court.
The most common suggested reform would be the ability for the defendant to request for the matter to be heard in a separate court outside of the small claims aspect, thereby minimizing the fees required of them. In addition, some critics have urged for the small claims courts to allow for higher damage awards, given the increasing inflation and the rising costs of damages related to emotional or reputational issues.