What are the implications of a broken hand that heals straight versus crooked?

Primary text

If the hand is broken and heals straight, a discretionary indemnity is due for any disfigurement it caused. If it heals crookedly, the discretionary indemnity is greater because the disfigurement is more severe. If the injurer states the intention to break the hand and then ensure it heals straight, this is not permitted, as it constitutes a second act of assault. If the hand is broken maliciously and then is set straight, the indemnity previously due for the crookedness does not lapse because that liability was established when it healed crookedly. This situation differs from the loss and return of sight, where it is determined that the light was only temporarily obscured, not truly lost. A second discretionary indemnity is due for the second breakage.