"must pay back" dad seems more accurate than "must pay" dad. What about pain and suffering? Aren't men allowed to be compensated for that?
I have no opinion. Just wanted to see what others thought about this mess.
"Pain and suffering" is one of the biggest perversions of both the courts and money we have. People should be paid in money when it's money they lost. Non monetary losses are just that.
Other than that quibble with ~your~ post, the decision appears to be a good one. :~D
The story indicated the award to father was based on a breach of contract claim. Consequential damages such as pain and suffering are rarely recoverable in a contract action. Those are generally tort claim damages.