Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Much Is a Child's Life Worth?

By Viviana Zelizer, Huffington Post. Posted September 8, 2007.


We are about to find out as the lawsuit filed by the parents of an 11-year-old who was killed on 9/11 is about to come to trial.
Advertisement

On September 11, 2001, Michelle and Clifton Cottom's 11-year old daughter Asia died on American Airlines flight 77 when hijackers crashed the plane into the Pentagon. She was heading to Los Angeles on a school trip. In a few weeks, the lawsuit they and the families of 41 other victims have brought against the airlines will finally come to trial.

At issue in these first trials is not the airline's liability but establishing adequate damages, specifically the monetary equivalence of the victims' pain and suffering as well as the grief of surviving family members. Congress set up a Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) for 9/11 largely to avoid trials and settlements that could have bankrupted the airlines.

But how can any court accurately price an 11-year old's life? While most other 9/11 cases have long been settled thanks to Kenneth Feinberg's able management of the VCF, the current lawsuits involve for the most part people, like the Cottoms, who would have received lower awards. Why?

Because Feinberg's compensation scheme used lost economic value as its main standard, not only computing the victim's likely future earnings but also estimating the market price of lost services. Although Feinberg then augmented awards based on further information about survivors' personal hardship and relationship to the victim, survivors of victims with low or no earning potential received significantly less compensation than high earners.

Michelle Cottom sued the airlines because she found the victim compensation calculations unfair and offensive. As she put it in a New York Times interview: "To me, it just smelled of dishonesty. How do you justify, O.K., an 11-year old is worth $2, but because you're the pilot of the plane, that's worth $2 million?" (September 4). In their daughter's case, moreover, the compensation fund would have deducted what the parents collected from a life insurance policy they had taken out on Asia.

Michelle Cottom's complaints about the cheap pricing of a child's life have a long history. At the turn of the 20th century, Americans were jolted by a series of well-publicized child death cases which received shocking low awards: 6 cents for a New York boy, 10 dollars for a three-year-old in Nebraska, one cent for a 12-year old in Missouri. In 1895 an angry New York judge set aside a verdict of $50 for the death of an eight-year old. Ordering a new trial, Judge Pryor expressed his distress that a bright, healthy boy could be assigned the "price of a poodle dog."

What was going on? Among other things, a clash between standard wrongful death calculations based on economic loss and a dramatic transformation in the economic value of children. As long as child labor existed, 19th century courts had been able to assign economic value to the loss of child life -- just like the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund did for adults. But by the early 20th century Americans rejected any definition of children as economically productive -- a child was now exclusively an (expensive) economically useless but emotionally priceless being.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, lawsuit, death, kids

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
4
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 8, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At most, parents should be compensated for out-of-pocket medical expenses between the time of incident and time of death. Funeral expenses are inevitable. And like the article says, losing a kid could actually save you a lot of money, warped as it sounds.

If the child survives, that's a whole other matter, of course. You have a living victim who will suffer and have expenses as a result of the incident.

Parents who try to cash in on their kid's death should receive all the publicity they deserve, then be tarred and feathered once their 15 minutes are up.

Of course, negligent and criminal parties should pay out the wazoo--especially big corporate ones who thought they could get away with something. Government should not be setting up funds to get them off the hook. The money should go to a charity, a health care fund for the uninsured, or something like that.

Just brainstorming...Interesting article. Great discussion topic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the Parents?
Posted by: mousch on Sep 8, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They had invested their lives in a little girl for 11 years, and her life was taken away in a truly terrible incident.

The parents may have needed grief and traumatic counselling, and this could also cost them thousands of dollars. The settlement scheme should take this into account. Nobody just gets over their baby girl disappearing one day.

Is it strange to see parents wanting larger settlements in childrens' deaths? Yes. But isn't that better than "sorry your kid died, here, he's worth about $10"?

That money can be used to take care of any of the child's expenses and to take care of the parents. I bet their healthcare bills have become quite high since 2001 as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's kind of creepy
Posted by: Cruella on Sep 8, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean for one thing if a child's worth is mostly in terms of it's emotional importance to it's family are orphans and unwanted children worth less than loved and cherished children? I'm not sure how it can be resolved but I do think it would be fairest to come up with a number or a scale and then apply it retrospectively to the victims of the Vietnam War - an d ongoing agent orange problems, etc, the victims of the Bhopal disaster and the civilian dead in Iraq - which the administration is so arrogant, it has not even bothered to count. When we've all finished being grateful for the illegal invasion of Iraq that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Their baby is gone.
Posted by: donneek on Sep 8, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is none of my business what they do with any money they might get after the lawers get theirs.

How do you put a dollar amount on all the sleepless nights wondering what your baby went through in their last moments. Did they hurt, were they terrified, or did they even understand what was happening? The gut wrenching sobs and pain so searing that you don't think you will ever breathe right again.

You put your baby on a plane as millions of other parents have done in the past, you trust that they will get to their desination and that you will be waiting to hug them and hear their travel stories when they get home.

Nothing will bring them back, there aren't enough tears or money that will do that. But in your rage and desire for justice you want someone to pay for stealing your baby away from you. You want someone to hurt as much as you do. Unfortunately the comparitively small sum that the corporations will have to fork out won't even register on their radar, just collateral damage of doing business and corporations don't have feelings.

Who am I to judge how you try to right this horrible wrong in your life. I hope in the end you find some kind of peace as I finally did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's value, and then there's value
Posted by: hagwind on Sep 8, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can put a price on medical expenses, funeral expenses, the cost of counseling or the cost of retrofitting your home to accommodate a disability. But how can you put a price on something that can't be quantified -- something that isn't for sale? Pain and suffering? lost companionship? a human life? (During slavery times, strange but true, we knew what some human lives were worth. How much value did those lives have?) In a lawsuit like this, a number of dollars can be assigned, and perhaps eventually paid, because there's a payor or payors: corporations or agencies that will do the paying. When there isn't, then what? How do we quantify and set a price on, say, the potential lost when a child is physically, mentally, or emotionally stunted because of poverty, or violence, or war?

We can't -- but we have to. Because in a market economy, anything without a price has no value. In a wild irony of the English language, "priceless" means "without value." If no value is assigned, then it can't be counted, or accounted for; it doesn't show up on the ledger. For many, many years, the cost of disposing of industrial waste and obsolete goods and consumer trash wasn't factored into the cost of the goods and the cost of doing business. Today plenty of goods are cheap because certain costs aren't factored in, like the well-being of the workers who produce them or the state of the U.S. economy. What's democratic government worth when the market plays too big a role in determining who holds public office?

It's a conundrum. It's a koan. Solutions, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The value of a child's life
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 8, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought that the attempt on the part of our government to force a settlement on everyone was, in part, to prevent any investigation into what really happened on 9/11 anyway. Has there every been such a catastrophe that has gone without any investigation whatsoever? Yes, our government wanted no investigation. The only thing the Bush administration wanted was another Pearl Harbor and I would guess they either did whatever they needed to do to make it happen, or they looked the other way sufficiently for it to happen.

As a parent, grandparent, and great grandparent, I would go crazy if I had a child on that flight (or any of them on 9/11). I would have preferred to go with them. My heart goes out to the parents and family members of all those who died.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The value of a child's life Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Not completely tongue in cheek
Posted by: EJW on Sep 8, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we should value a person's life by income lost to corporations. The only value a person has in this society seems to be their "buying power" and children have a lot of that. Therefore, calculate value on potential amount of money spent. 'The powers that be' would pay attention and understand that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should any of them get anything?
Posted by: jgdewey on Sep 8, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really fail to see why anyone of them should be compensated by the airlines. They didn't have mechanical error or pilot error. In our sue happy society bad things are alway another's fault. Certainly it's not American Airlines fault that a kid is dead, anymore than it's the hospitals fault when someone dies there,unless there was some horrid negligence, And there wasn't. Bad things happen, people suffer and sometimes it's nobodies fault but life on planet earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Er, Asia was a GIRL, not a boy... Posted by: bloominblacksheep
» Guilt, or grief? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Guilt, or grief? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
don't like "loss of life" compensation
Posted by: drmeow on Sep 9, 2007 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never liked the whole way that "value" is place on a life. For one thing, the whole "earning potential" thing smacks of patriarchy. Furthermore, just because you marry someone, that doesn't guarantee you a certain income from that person. What if that person divorces you? Becomes disabled? Loses their job? Takes huge losses on the stock market?

I also think it should not be used in sentencing for murder.

Does life have a basic value or not? Why should a lawyer or CEO be worth more than a sales clerk, etc. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Please don’t try to tell me that George Bush’s life is more valuable than my husband’s ;). Is the loss of a sales clerk any less of a financial hardship than that of a CEO? Actually, it’s probably a greater hardship. After all, the spouse of the CEO probably has a couple of houses, one of which s/he could sell … oh, poor thing, they would have a lower standard of living than they had before (which was undoubtedly over the top anyway). Or do only “productive” lives (as defined by who?) have value? When they calculate the “value” of a homemaker, do they actually calculate how much the spouse would have to pay for those services – including prostitution (and if they remarry, do they have to give some of the money back since they no longer have to pay for those services)? What about the cost of dating … it I lose my spouse and start dating again, I have to “repay” all those pesky dating costs when I was through with that 

If you want to place a value on emotional pain, it should be the same for everyone. All people suing (spouse, parents, children) should get the same amount for said pain (so larger families left behind = larger settlements).

Of course, if we had universal health care that included treatment for emotional/mental issues, there would not need to be compensation for medical bills or psychological treatment (let the government sue the corporation for the cost of care!).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like playing the lottery...
Posted by: chomsky on Sep 9, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
monetary equivalence of the victims' pain and suffering
That reason (excuse?) has been used and abused so many times...
For some (too many, especialy in the US) people/companies, sueing is like playing the lottery, they expect a lot of $$$.
Here's my point of view about how US trials should work.
One is guilty, one is a victim.
You compensate the victim's cost/losses by $x.
You punish the guilty by $y ($y > guilty's gain from crime!!!).
($y-$x) goes into taxes/charity/non profit/...
"pain and suffering" is not solved by money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But wait, there was no plane crash at the Pentagon!
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 9, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are all the conspiracy theorists claiming this couple are faking their daughter's death, or are part of some giant government disinformation project?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about the money...
Posted by: Kia on Sep 10, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the commenter who said it shouldn't matter what the parents do with the money. After all, as the author so eloquently states it, this isn't about the money--it's about public recognition of the loss suffered. On Tort Deform we had a similar discussion about the families' right to sue the airlines to obtain more information about what happened, what could have been done, etc., and to achieve a sense of closure.

At any rate it's interesting that the motives of the families who decided to sue are being scrutinized when these are the folks who wanted truth--even if it meant possibly not taking any compensation (if they lose) or taking less than that offered under the fund. Meanwhile the motives of Congress and the airline industry who lobbied for the bill that created the Fund, providing a fund on the stipulation that you have to first relinquish your seventh amendment right to sue, are not being as closely criticized in the discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]