What does tort reform mean and are you for or against it?

[Dr. Who]

Tort reform means laws designed to reduce litigation. The laws generally focus on a specific industry, such as the medical profession. While most tort reform in the U.S. has been enacted by the states, some has been passed by the federal government.

Tort reform is a contentious issue. Proponents are typically businesses, trade organizations, insurance companies, medical providers, or politicians. Critics are often medical patients, consumer groups, trial lawyers, or legal scholars.



Tort reform has its favorable and unfavorable characteristics. Both sides have their merits, and it's worth considering the arguments on each side, summarized below:



Favorable:

• Preserves laws needed to prevent hurtful and abusive practices against businesses.
• Prevents lawyers from clogging the legal system with too many frivolous lawsuits
• Prevents lawsuits that are too costly and keeps product liability and medical malpractice insurance costs from escalating.

Unfavorable:

• Critics contend the laws won't fix the problems that led to the initial lawsuits
• It could limit the ability of people to get justice for their injuries.
• It will penalize those who can't afford legal counsel.
• It will lower potential damage awards and disincentivize attorneys from helping financially disadvantaged victims.

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to...siness-4152126


I was prompted to post this based on the $12M award in the Breonna Taylor case. Proponents of tort reform are seeking both to reduce the excessive if not frivolous civil litigation that has become the bread and butter of class action and personal injury attorneys and also seeks to put a cap on non-economic damages (i.e. damages for pain & suffering, inconvenience, hurt feelings etc.) on the basis that money does not alleviate grief or bad feelings. This does not mean that plaintiffs can't be awarded damages for psychological therapy or things of that nature. Other aspects of tort reform include caps on punitive damages, limitations on contingency fees, elimination of joint and several liability (where one party can be held liable for damages assessed against a group of co-defendants) and other items that you can find at the link.


What is your opinion?

[texan]

I am for it.

[zelmo1234]

While there are many things that do end up in court TORT reforms would help to some extent.

You always here me talking about it costing more for a liberal to build a home if we find out they are liberal. It is because of such litigation.

For example the Lady that wanted the Trump vehicle moved. Was really pissed at me for not telling her that the driver was black. When it was finished she went nuts telling me that not only was it the wrong shower design but the tiles were wrong as well.

Fortunately we knew who were were dealing with. In a normal construction we have boards made up with the tile and the design. But in this case we had the drawings, the tile and the grout and sealer all put on the boards we take them to the office and I have the notary come over from the bank, we have the customer sign in a marker the the actual tile, the pattern the sealer and the grout, and then a letter that states that the notary witnessed the signing

If I had not done this in this case we would be paying for a very expensive shower because she was but hurt about her politics and racism...

That is what tort reform could help because though I will win, she will be able to find a lawyer that will take it to court for her...

Another thing that would stop much of this is slap back laws. Which state if the person is found to be innocent and the judge feels that it was filed without any evidence then the lawyer would owe the defendant the amount of the suit

This would stop a lot of stupid $#@! from happening.

[Dr. Who]

I am for it.

In all respects? What do you think is a reasonable award for non-economic damages or punitive damages?

[Standing Wolf]

Tort reform is a present that politicians give to the manufacturers, insurance companies and medical providers who give them mountains of campaign cash in return. One of the main arguments one hears in favor of tort reform is that it results in a reduction of medical costs. Texas instituted tort reform in 2003, and medical costs have increased every year since - including an increase of 14% just in the last five years. Advocates for tort reform always trot out the same relatively few cases - or rather, fictionalized versions of those cases - where some allegedly outrageous award was made for supposedly questionable damages, to divert attention from the negative effect it has on the ability of many, many more citizens to obtain a reasonable amount of justice for their losses and injuries.

[Dr. Who]

While there are many things that do end up in court TORT reforms would help to some extent.

You always here me talking about it costing more for a liberal to build a home if we find out they are liberal. It is because of such litigation.

For example the Lady that wanted the Trump vehicle moved. Was really pissed at me for not telling her that the driver was black. When it was finished she went nuts telling me that not only was it the wrong shower design but the tiles were wrong as well.

Fortunately we knew who were were dealing with. In a normal construction we have boards made up with the tile and the design. But in this case we had the drawings, the tile and the grout and sealer all put on the boards we take them to the office and I have the notary come over from the bank, we have the customer sign in a marker the the actual tile, the pattern the sealer and the grout, and then a letter that states that the notary witnessed the signing

If I had not done this in this case we would be paying for a very expensive shower because she was but hurt about her politics and racism...

That is what tort reform could help because though I will win, she will be able to find a lawyer that will take it to court for her...

Another thing that would stop much of this is slap back laws. Which state if the person is found to be innocent and the judge feels that it was filed without any evidence then the lawyer would owe the defendant the amount of the suit

This would stop a lot of stupid $#@! from happening.

I would agree that the loser should pay when the lawsuit is frivolous. Where the lawsuit hasn't got obvious merit, the Court should require that plaintiffs provide evidence that they can pay the defendants costs before it proceeds to trial.

[zelmo1234]

In all respects? What do you think is a reasonable award for non-economic damages or punitive damages?

So lets say that I drive a garbage truck and one morning I fall asleep at the wheel run a red light and hit a car causing the person to have to be in a wheel chair.

They will sue the company because the persons liability is not enough. So what is a fair settlement.

So lets say that this person makes 50K per year.

They are going to need several specialized things like a home, vehicles, possible courses and therapy and then you have the medical expenses, all these should be covered 100%

No lets say that the person in the accident was a landscaper. Clearly this person will not be able to continue that career. So they would need to be compensated for their income to include annual increases and retirement just as if they were working and for a 50 K income plus health insurance and the others that would be in the 3 to 4 million so they could live off the investment.

Then if they want to learn another career the training should be paid for.

And because life will be a little harder they should receive a one time payment of 10 times their annual income.

That is what Tort reform would to, and it would likely cost the company in this case 6 to 7 million

Now the lawyer is going to sue for 50 million in hopes of getting 10 of which he would take 5 and then will go back to the well in 5 years when the person has spent the money because nobody taught them what to do with it.

[Dr. Who]

Tort reform is a present that politicians give to the manufacturers, insurance companies and medical providers who give them mountains of campaign cash in return. One of the main arguments one hears in favor of tort reform is that it results in a reduction of medical costs. Texas instituted tort reform in 2003, and medical costs have increased every year since - including an increase of 14% just in the last five years. Advocates for tort reform always trot out the same relatively few cases - or rather, fictionalized versions of those cases - where some allegedly outrageous award was made for supposedly questionable damages, to divert attention from the negative effect it has on the ability of many, many more citizens to obtain a reasonable amount of justice for their losses and injuries.

Given my background, I tend to see these issues from the insurance perspective and lets face it, whether the defendant is a manufacturer, a medical provider or even a municipality, there is generally an insurer in the picture. From my perspective, non-economic damages, for instance, don't assuage pain and suffering or bring back the dead, so beyond a certain point they are simply punitive and simply take the place of a punitive damage award that can't be awarded unless the defendant's conduct was truly egregious.

You brought up medical malpractice and while there certainly are cases where medical practitioners have been utterly and reprehensibly negligent, there are other cases where it comes down to a battle of the experts as to whether there was in fact any negligence. Case in point, there are many compromised baby births where children are born with Cerebral Palsy, however while medical negligence is alleged, it isn't always actually possible to determine with 100% accuracy whether the damage happened prior to the mother's arrival at the hospital or due to some error on the part of the nurses or attending doctors. Juries tend to favor the plaintiff. There are few things as tragic as a parent with a severely compromised child.

In other cases of alleged malpractice, doctors may be held to what can only be described as a super human standard by juries, so it's not cut and dried. There is no question that high awards in med-mal cases drive up insurance premiums and those costs will be passed on to patients or their insurers. One way or another, society is going to pay for those increased premiums in addition to all other factors driving up medical costs.

[Dr. Who]

So lets say that I drive a garbage truck and one morning I fall asleep at the wheel run a red light and hit a car causing the person to have to be in a wheel chair.

They will sue the company because the persons liability is not enough. So what is a fair settlement.

So lets say that this person makes 50K per year.

They are going to need several specialized things like a home, vehicles, possible courses and therapy and then you have the medical expenses, all these should be covered 100%

No lets say that the person in the accident was a landscaper. Clearly this person will not be able to continue that career. So they would need to be compensated for their income to include annual increases and retirement just as if they were working and for a 50 K income plus health insurance and the others that would be in the 3 to 4 million so they could live off the investment.

Then if they want to learn another career the training should be paid for.

And because life will be a little harder they should receive a one time payment of 10 times their annual income.

That is what Tort reform would to, and it would likely cost the company in this case 6 to 7 million

Now the lawyer is going to sue for 50 million in hopes of getting 10 of which he would take 5 and then will go back to the well in 5 years when the person has spent the money because nobody taught them what to do with it.

So you would cap non-economic damages at 10 X yearly (net) income. What about people who are not employed? Since non-economic damages are not related to income, what would a stay at home mom or a dependent child receive? They are still going to experience a harder life or experience psychological trauma, pain and suffering.

[zelmo1234]

So you would cap non-economic damages at 10 X yearly (net) income. What about people who are not employed? Since non-economic damages are not related to income, what would a stay at home mom or a dependent child receive? They are still going to experience a harder life or experience psychological trauma, pain and suffering.

A stay at home Mom is employed. What you would do is add up all that it would cost for her to do her job. House keepers, Cooks, ext. that would be easy to put a value on and far as youth. I don't know exactly how to do that other then use a median income and use that as the figure.