THERE IS NO PENALTY TO RESPOND.IF HE IS IN PRISON , HE IS STILL IN PRISON.

PLEASE RISE. THE THRESHOLD PERMANENT INJURY WAS ESTABLISHED.

NOW THE DISTRICT COURT IN ISSUE. ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

NO, SIR, YOUR HONOR --.

IF THEY HAVE CORRECTLY STATED THE LAW FORTH THE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES THAT CAN BE AWARDED. I THINK IT HAS AFTER ITS OWN INSURANCE COMPANY OR IT'S IF IT IS NOT A PERMANENT INJURY. I MEAN YOUR HONOR , THE LEGISLATURE CAN DO THAT. INSURED BE ABLE T O RECOVER AGAINST THE INSURER ? PARTICIPANTS IN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER NO FAULT RULES TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR DISABILITY EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH LORING , WHICH JUSTICE CANTERO MENTIONED. ACCORDINGLY WE NOW HOLD THAT NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES INCLUDING THOSE FOR DISABILITY, PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT AND LOSS O F ABLE TO GET NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES.

WELL , THE SECOND FOR ENJOYMENT OF LIFE? WHEN I ASKED MS. STEDMAN SHE SAID THEY DIDN'T.

ACCORDING TO SMILEY VERSUS INCONVENIENCE. SICKNESS , BECAUSE OF BODILY THE PLAINTIFF DOES SUFFER PERMANENT INJURY , I THINK IT IS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT A PLAINTIFF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND BY NOT SAYING INCLUDING , DOESN'T THE STATUTE THAT THE , WHATEVER WE CALL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES OTHER WORDS YOU'RE SAYING LAWYER WAS TRYING T O ARGUE BECAUSE THEY MENTIONED MENTAL ANGUISH AND THEN THE SCARRING AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. BUT HAS NEVER , HAS IT , ELEMENTS AVAILABLE AT COMMON LAW IS BEYOND DISPUTE. THE STATUTE MUST BE STRICTLY BACK TO YOUR POSITION THAT THESE DAMAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE EVEN IF THERE IS A PERMANENT ONE? LEWIS'S QUESTION. DON'T YOU END U P THEN ON THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA , IF YOU'RE GOING TO RELY ON THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, RMENT Y SAYING THAT THEEXEMPTION USES THE SAME TERMS , SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO RELY ON THE DEATH , I MEAN SO , SECTION TWO IS NOT REALLY LIMITED TO