Insurance companies are eager to convince us that jury awards need caps. We most often hear about this relating to medical malpractice, but if these companies had their way, all lawsuits would be capped — at some ridiculously low figure like $250,000. After all, the less they pay out, the more they make. And it’s already been demonstrated that lower payouts won’t actually lower premiums (and, therefore, won’t solve the insurance crises we keep hearing about).

But a story today at Findlaw horrifyingly demonstrates why, sometimes, a cap on non-economic damages seems inappropriate — even a $250,000 cap.

In most cases, there’s no affirmative duty to save someone’s life. It seems to me, however, that the supervisor-employee relationship — particularly when the supervisor is the only person present who knows how to turn off the machine that is slowly suffocating the employee before the eyes of 10 to 15 other employees — would be one of those which alters this mix.

One wonders why, in addition to the jury award to the woman’s husband, we didn’t also hear about second-degree murder charges being lodged against the supervisor.