The Florida Constitution guarantees that everyone is equal before the law and a rational-basis test will be used to evaluate whether the statute being challenged bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state objective and it cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously imposed. For example: whether the damaged parties in a medical malpractice wrongful death case should be subject to a statute that affords them different rights than similarly damaged people in a slightly different context (e.g. a wrongful death that does not occur by way of medical malpractice)? Or, in this case, whether caps make sense when more than one party is afflicted by the same act of medical negligence? If so, what would the rational basis be for doing so? According to the Florida Supreme Court, forcing three claimants to share one small pot of money when, in an identical case, one person might have access to that same pot, makes no sense. The former scenario is illogical and unfairly burdens an injured party just because a single act of medical negligence gave rise to multiple claimants – their individual rights to compensation are arbitrarily diminished. For example: If a wife dies, due to the negligence of another, leaving only a surviving spouse, that spouse might be able to claim $500,000. If that same wife was also a mother of four minor children, there would be five claimants to that same $500,000. How is this fair? How can the legislature say that those five claimants are being afforded equal protection under the law? Limiting what one claimant can claim for his loss just because there are other people who have suffered losses is irrational. On a larger scale: the greater the number of survivors and the more devastating their losses are, the less likely they are to be fully compensated for those losses.