Tom believed he was injured because the company had been negligent in not properly training him in the use of the machine, in taking down the safety instructions, and in not heeding his repeated requests for help. Tom=s union representative helped him acquire legal help to work out a long-term solution for compensating him for damages due to the company =s negligence. The company knew it had a poorly defensible case and offered to settle out of court. The company offered Tom three different settlement alternatives (any of which Tom could choose]. Had he not been injured, Tom estimated that he would have worked an additional 22 years, before retirement. Tom=s current salary is $50,000 per year. Tom now was faced with task of deciding which alternative would be best for him to agree to. The settlement alternatives: Alternative 1. Tom would be paid $300,000 up front and would also receive the equivalent of his annual pay once each year for the remainder of his estimated working years (22 payments). Alternative 2. Tom would receive a one-time lump-sum payment today of $750,000. Alternative 3. Tom would receive 22 annual payments equal to half his annual salary. At the end of year 22, Tom would receive an additional payment of $1,000,000