Specifically, the problems lie with the criterion of valuing life and limb, a criterion inconsistent with economic theory. The standard method of proof requires the expert witness to collect evidence of past earnings, place the individual into a statistical group for which wage data are available, and project wages into the future in order to compute the present value of lost earnings. However, the richness of detail contained in earnings tables is quite limited, resulting in incomplete characterizations of potential earnings. Furthermore, the structure of damages under tort law generally results in the undercompensation of plaintiffs. In addition, the death of the victim becomes less expensive than injury, reducing the incentive to potential tortfeasors to reduce harm at the margin. More fundamentally, the methodology underlying the proof of damages is flawed and is likely to result in some undercompensation to plaintiffs as, for example, when the law of damages bases damages on a 40 rather than a 168-hour-week. Footnotes and 22 references are given.