(n382) E.g., Carson v. Maurer, 424 A.2d 825, 837 (N.H. 1980) (equal protection violation: "It is simply unfair and unreasonable to impose the burden of supporting the medical care industry solely upon those persons who are most severely injured and therefore in need of compensation."); Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1978).
(n383) See, e.g., Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 211 Cal. Rptr. 368 (Cal. 1985) ($250,000 does not violate California's due process guarantees); Morris v. Savoy, 581 N.E.2d 529 (Ohio 1991) ($200,000 limit on general damages violated state's due process guarantees).
(n384) See, e.g., Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc., 404 N.E.2d 585 (Inc. 1980) ($500,000 cap does not violate right to remedy provision of Indiana constitution); Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Serv., Inc., 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990) (cap statute provides sufficient quid pro quo to satisfy right to remedy provision of Kansas constitution).
(n385) See, e.g., Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080, (Fla. 1987) ($450,000 cap violates Florida's open court provision). Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex 1988) (cap statute violates open courts provision of Texas constitution).
(n386) See, e.g., Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Assoc., No. 89-1087, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1001 (Ala. Sept. 27, 1991) (cap statute violates right to jury trial guarantee); Etheridge v. Medical Center Hosp., 376 S.E.2d 525 (Va. 1989) (statute limiting total recovery to $750,000 does not violate right to jury trial).
(n387) Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Assoc., No. 89-1087, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 1001 (Ala. Sept. 27, 1991), at 4.
(n388) It is possible to provide for an outer cutoff cap without limiting any one plaintiff's damages. This appears to be what the European Economic Community did when it promulgated its Products Liability Directive in 1985. The Directive provided for a 70 million European Currency Unit (ECU) cap on a seller's total liability for injuries caused by a single product line. See Sara F. Leibman, The European Communities' Products Liability Directive: Is the American Experience Applicable?, 18 L. & POL'Y INT'L BUS. 795, 806-08 (1986). The unanswered question is what happens when the fund is exhausted. The result can be first come, first served or, alternatively, the plaintiffs' claims can be consolidated and the funds rationed. See also Price- Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2210 (1982) (imposing a $560 million cap on any company's liability in the event of a nuclear accident).
(n389) Crooked S&L operators walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars or flitted away hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and the only ones in these joint and several actions who have any money to pay at the end of the day are the ones who benefited the least.' says Ralph C. Ferrara, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer....
Sherry R. Sontag, Soured Deals Snag More Professionals, NAT'L L.J., Feb. 4, 1991, at 1. Cf. Paul M. Barrett, Court to Decide Outsiders' RICO Liability, WALL ST. J., Feb. 25, 1992, at B5 (reporting that Supreme Court will review 8th Circuit's ruling that accountants found to have committed securities fraud are not liable under RICO because firm's conduct "'didn't rise to the