An answer to the "tort reform" question

[rogerashton]

Well, it isn't really black and white, is it? There are too many lawsuits, of course, but most of them are not "frivolous." They are debateable, and the people who file them have a reasonable expectation of having their cases heard. But there has to be a reasonable middle ground on this. So-called 'tort reform" that simply takes away a person's right to sue isn't an answer -- it's an extremist political sound-bite. There are too many lawsuits, frankly, because legislatures haven't done their job. When the legislatures don't do their job, you rely on the courts, and in this case that isn't satisfactory.

We need to sit down with people from both sides, with doctors and patients and insurance people and experts and work out some guidelines for when malpractice relief may be sought, resolving those debateable cases in advance, rather than leaving them to the courts. That's hard to do when one party takes an extremist black-and-white point of view for political gains, and refuses to consider the facts or to consider compromise. But that's what we have to do, and when I become president, I'll do my best to make it happen. And if we have a Democratic congress, I'm confident it will happen.

[Sparkly]

1. I liked the plan Edwards described Tuesday

I hadn't heard that before, and it sounded like a great idea.

[ewagner]

2. Or this?

It's really about a balance of power.

If the pResident's version of tort reform went into place, Corporations, manufacturers and producers would have little, if any, incentive to practice quality control. If the product or service is defective, they suffer little consequence. The consumer is at their mercy. Conversely, if they know that they can be literally sued out of business, then they have an incentive to make sure their products are safe for consumer use.

[ArkDem]

4. If the product or service is defective they will lose their

customers which will put them out of business.

[spooky3]

7. The problem here is the time lag & percentages. By the time you learn

that the pills you have been taking cause heart attacks, it may be too late for you. And maybe only 20% of people who are driving on defective tires have accidents with them (versus .001% of people who are driving on non-defective tires), but for those 20% the costs are enormous and should not be theirs to bear, particularly without being informed in advance of the risks. This is why there has to be regulation and enforcement, rather than a purely market-driven solution.

[rogerashton]

50. Right.

But there is a real problem there, so "think positive" as well.

[JimmyJazz]

3. I really, really hate when they portray Edwards as an ambulance

chaser. If it weren't for guys like him, asbestos would still be manufactured and people would still be dying in Pintos! Yes, I can't stand the McDonald's coffee case either, but for everyone one of those cases, there are others where large corporations have changed their way of doing business as a result of a lawsuit.

Do I think we are a litigious society? Yes, I do, but I don't think broad brush tort reform is the answer. I like the three strikes rule as well.

Also, every time ambulance chasing lawyers are mentioned, it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people that insurance companies are extremely profitable. Let's look at their books and determine who is fleecing the American people. It's not the lawyers with their frivolous lawsuits - it's the insurance companies with their outrageous premiums and their denial of benefits to the very people who pay these premiums.

[beaconess]

14. Actually, the McDonald's case was not frivolous

The plaintiff was seriously injured by coffee that McDonald's knew was far too hot and could cause major burns. After she was scalded, she spent eight days in the hospital undergoing painful skin grafts and debridement treatments. She tried to get McDonald's to reimburse her for her medical bills. They refused. Only then did she sue them. A jury, after hearing all of the evidence presented by both sides, ruled in her favor.

This was NOT a frivolous suit.

http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

[spooky3]

16. excellent link, thanks.

[JimmyJazz]

17. Okay, I'll give you that one - how about the

Faberge case then? A young woman decided to make a candle scented by spraying it with perfume and, of course, burned herself. She sued and won and now perfume labels require a warning label!

Or the woman who decided to heat her bed by taking an old fashioned hair dryer and sticking the hose in the bed?

Or the lifelong 2 pack a day smoker who worked six weeks as a pipefitter and is suing asbestos manufacturers for giving him lung cancer?

I'm still not sure about the McDonald's case. I suppose it is possible that McDonald's should have known the coffee was too hot, but how is it hotter than the coffee I buy at Wawa? I have to put an ice cube in it just to take a sip. But, I don't want to argue about it either. There are way too many other examples.

On edit: excellent link.

[AP]

22. I don't see what's wrong...

...with those cases.

If you only give a sentence and don't explain the whole story, it's really impossible to see what was really happening.

Some people put perfume on while they're smoking. It's probably a good idea to put warnings on the ones that could turn into flame-throwers.

Asbestosis and lung cancer and two completely different diseases. You don't get asbestosis and the sort of mesothilioma you get from asbestos from smoking.

You want to let the asbestos industry off the hook just because you think smokers are taking a risk of lung cancer so they shouldn't complain when they get asbestosis? Right.

As for the coffee, McDs was making a business decision about their coffee temperature. They accepted the risk of scalding people because they thought they could fool sucker jurors like you into thinking "what's the difference between this and wall mart coffee?"

Fortunately, the average juror is smarter than you are.

[JimmyJazz]

27. There is absolutely no need to be insulting.

I said in my post that I consider it frivolous to sue an asbestos manufacturer for Lung Cancer if you've smoked two packs a day for 40 years. I said nothing about asbestosis and meso - those would not be considered frivolous in my opinion. They are legitimate cases.

As for the ORIGINAL faberge case, it was based more on someone doing something outrageous and the lawsuit was dismissed which would lend credibility to my claim that it was frivolous.

The hair dryer case is very old and the name of the case escapes me at this time, but it was similar to the Faberge case.

http://riskmgmt.biz/attorney/tortsiioutline.htm

As for the coffee case, I retracted that one as frivolous in my previous post, but can't see how others aren't being sued for the same types of injuries.

BTW, when someone disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily make them stupid. I don't appreciate it one bit. If you want to respond to this post with more insults, then I respectfully say, "don't bother."

[AP]

28. If the guy didn't get a disease that asbestos causes, he's not going to

get past a motion to dismiss. What's your problem with that?

If perfumes shouldn't be flammable, they shouldn't be flammable. I'm not sure how outrageous what you described would be without seeing way more of the case then your one sentence.

You merely gave me a perfect example to explain how McDonalds thought they were going to get away with this. I couldn't pass it up.

[JimmyJazz]

29. The Faberge case is very old. I'll do a Lexis search

on Monday and get back to you. Maybe I can find the hairdryer case as well.

My problem with "he's not going to get passed a motion to dismiss" is that it is factually inaccurate. Some are dismissed by motions, but many more cases are settled by giving the plaintiff an amount of money that would be somewhat less than the cost of defending the suit. When you sue multiple defendants, those sums can add up to a lot of money for someone not really deserving of it.

Please consider very carefully before calling me wrong and/or stupid on this issue.

[AP]

66. Wrong. Stupid.

Just kidding.

Asbestos litigation has almost no nuisance value. There are so many good cases, and a huge apapratus for processing the cases, that any case where the plaintiff doesn't have a disease caused by asbestos is going to be litigated. The marginal cost of taking one more case to trial is so tiny that it's worth fighting each case.

That's just a fact about asbestos. It's not the case with many other nuissance suits.

So, go look for better arguments to support your firmly held opinon about frivolous law suits.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But I do think it's funny that your reasons for being hostile are kind of lame.

[JimmyJazz]

32. I was in error. The case did in fact go to the jury -

I was relying on a twenty year old memory. However, I still consider the case to be frivolous, as does the author of the article. I believe assumption of the risk has to have some place in society.

The entire case is Moran v. Faberge 332 A2d 11, 15

"The heeding presumption has to do with these mis-use cases. Try another set of facts: The Moran v. Faberge. Sugarman loves this case. Teenagers tried to scent a candle by pouring cologne on lighted candles. (Side issue: was there a design defect in the cologne? Maybe they should have sold perfume, has no alcohol. But then maybe these are not really comparable products.) There are a number of questions here: A) Was it foreseeably dangerous? B) Should there have been a warning? C) Would the warning have been heeded? Would the warning have reached the kids, if it had been the mother’s perfume? What if it was only on the box? Notice that the burden of some warning is viewed as relatively trivial. So, once there’s at least some foreseeability, the burden of whether to warn comes into play here. Note also that there are other ways in which the cologne could catch on fire. The issue is whether or not they should have seen fire hazards of some sort. The foreseeability is somewhat doubtful, but they may have been aware of it. Unlike Hood, the court lets it go to the jury. The jury found for an insistence upon a warning.

Next, to whom should warnings be given? For little children, it’s clear that you have to give warning to the parents. Here there’s a question as to whether the parents would have warned the kids, but Sugarman thinks this is so unlikely that the parents wouldn’t have thought of it. But there are clearly other cases where the danger is more obvious, to wit cigarette lighters."

the entire article is here: http://www.nvo.com/mikelaw/nss-folder/torts/tortsnov7pmnotes.htm

[AP]

65. So what's your point? Your anxiety about frivolous law suits is based on

old cases you barely remember?

OK.

[kizzy]

35. The Maryland Ct. of Appeals AFFIRMED the jury verdict in the Faberge case

finding that "there was sufficient evidence presented to authorize the jury's decision . . . that defendant's failure to place a warning on its product constituted actionable negligence." Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 273 Md. 538 (1975).

If a Court of Appeals rules 7-1 that a jury verdict was correct, the case can hardly be called frivolous.

[JimmyJazz]

37. see my next post. I pulled that one line out of a memo from a

google search. I don't think it made the case any less frivolous. I have never been one to think a manufacturer of a product has to think of every conceivable use (mis-use) of a product before putting it on the market. Have you bought a beach ball recently? It's become a bit silly IMHO. One full page of fine print in at least twenty different languages to warn about using a beach ball??

Did you find the case about the hair dryer per chance? That's a very old case as well.

[beaconess]

53. YOU may think the case is frivolous

But the jurors who heard all of the evidence, the judge who presided and every opportunity to dismiss the case or toss out the jury verdict, and the 7 Court of Appeals judges who reviewed the record and applied the law didn't think it was frivolous. That's more than enough to sustain the validity of a case, regardless what those of us who are on the outside looking in believe.

And a manufacturer does NOT have to "think of every conceivable use (mis-use) of a product before putting it on the market." A manufacturer is not liable for unforeseeable consequences. But they ARE responsible for foreseeable damages.

I find it interesting that you're pulling these cases out of the thousands and thousands of suits to prove your point about frivolous suits. Did you know that the majority of lawsuits are not brought by individuals against companies, but are brought by one company suing another? Product liability and personal injury suits such as those you mention are quite a small part of the litigation system.

[JimmyJazz]

61. Apparently I have missed something. Explain to me then if

frivolous malpractice, personal injury and product liability cases are not a problem in this country, what was Edwards talking about when he said:

"We do have too many lawsuits. And the reality is there's something that we can do about it.

John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases.

That way we keep the cases out of the system that don't belong in the system. They talk about frivolous cases. We believe cases that don't belong in the system should never be in the system."

Because it seems as he and I are the only ones who agree that this is a problem while everyone else on this thread seems to think there are no frivolous lawsuits and, if there are, they represent such a small minority as to be insignificant.

[beaconess]

62. How do you equate Edwards noting that frivolous suits are a problem

with assuming that cases that go to trial, are decided by a jury and upheld by an appellate court are frivolous?

No one here said there are no frivolous lawsuits. We're simply pointing out that the suit you cited was not frivolous and that the fact that there are some frivolous suits does not mean that all other suits should be curtailed.

A suit is frivolous when it is without merit, i.e., there is no way that a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff. However, if a jury finds for the plaintiff and that verdict is upheld, that is pretty compelling proof that the case not only has merit, it is so strong that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict in their favor.

The problem that Edwards is referring to is that of the small number of lawyers who file cases they know have no merit in the hopes of forcing a financial settlement in advance of trial in order to avoid the cost and hassle of trying the case. Those cases don't belong in the system and usually don't stay there long since most of them are dismissed before they even get to trial. Edwards is urging that we deter lawyers from even bringing such cases in the first place, not that we prevent meritorious cases from going to trial.

[JimmyJazz]

64. I respectfully disagree with your statement that because a case

survives appellate court it is deemed meritous. A jury finding in favor of a plaintiff does not necessarily validate the claim. The jury may have been sympathatic to the plaintiff. As I am sure you know, this happens in cases where the injuries are severe as was the case in this instance.

Appellate courts cannot tell a jury they were wrong in their decision, but only rule on matters of judicial error. If no errors were made by the judge, the case cannot be overturned on the merits (or lack thereof).

Therefore, a jury verdit does not validate the claim and the opinion of whether or not a claim is meritous is just that, an opinion.

I recall this case as being taught as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, which is why it stands out in my head, and I still believe that it is.

[lastliberalintexas]

67. And neither does a dismissal

of a case prior to trial on the merits indicate that the case was frivolous. This is one of the biggest problems with the RWers wanting to "reform" the judicial system to rid us of so-called frivolous lawsuits- NO CAN COME UP WITH A WORKABLE DEFINITION OF FRIVOLOUS.

Like beauty, frivolity (of a legal action anyway) is in the eye of the beholder. The best anyone has been able to come up with is the truism that "A frivolous lawsuit is one against me. A meritorious lawsuit is one I bring."


You had some very strange legal professors if they taught you that a case which made it to trial and survived JNOV and appeal was deemed frivolous. Maybe you had a corporatist as a professor.

[JimmyJazz]

71. Yeah! We actually agree! I just have a more conservative

definition of what I think is frivolous and I have that standard because I think it harms those who have legitimate claims. I believe in a high degree of personal accountability.

I think there has been some difference of opinion because some are thinking I am belittling a person's injuries. I have not done that. I know these injuries were severe, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone else is responsible for them.

As for the corporatist mentality - hey, this is Delaware - did you expect anything less?

[lastliberalintexas]

75. LOL- yeah, that does explain a lot

Delaware law professor favoring the corporatist mentality- go figure!


BTW- I've never said that I agree with all the verdicts reached in all of these cases. I just agree that the courts should be open to the claims and that our system should take care of them from there, as that is what the judge and jury should do. Agreeing with the outcome isn't necessary to agree that our system works. But it's *people* powered, and that is what bothers the right.

[JimmyJazz]

77. I can agree with that. I can understand why someone would

equate jury verdict with meritous. I truly didn't think I was that conservative on the issue, but I see now that I am.

I guess Delaware is bit conservative with the corporate mentality, but they are a true blue state which is a bit contradictory - kinda like me.

[AP]

83. But none of your examples show how that happens.

The plaintiffs in your examples appear not to have had frivolous lawsuits.

[AP]

68. So it's not just law suits you don't like, it's the entire jury system?

[JimmyJazz]

69. Noooooooooooooooooooo.

I just have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes frivolous. That is all. I know I am more conservative on this issue than most here, but I didn't realize to what extent until this thread.

I believe in the system. With all it's imperfections, I do agree that it is the best in the world. But, can you honestly tell me that you agreed with the OJ Simpson verdict? If not, then do you disagree with the entire system? I hesitate to bring a criminal case into the discussion, but it is the case the quickly comes to mind as an example of the system when it failed.

[lastliberalintexas]

72. The system didn't fail with the OJ Simpson verdict

Jury nullification is PART of the system- always has been.


"I just have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes frivolous."

And that's the problem with this issue and these arguments- NO ONE can agree on what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit. Until that agreement is reached, the courts must remain open to the public.

[AP]

73. Hey, there are problems with the justice system in American (are we ..

.. talking criminal or civil, by the way).

I just don't think your examples were all that great. In fact, they're pretty weak.

I still can't believe you actually work with lawyers and tried to use the McDonalds example. I know no reasonable person who knows anything about the law who believes the RW spin about that case.

[beaconess]

87. One doesn't have to agree with the OJ verdict to believe that the system

usually works.

No, the system does not work all the time - it's fallible because it involves human beings. But why not err on the side of the victims, who are more likely than not to deserve compensation? Your approach penalizes all victims, preventing virtually all of them from being compensated fairly because a small number of people abuse the system resulting in cost and inconvenience to a small number of defendants, most of whom can more than bear the cost.

In other words, you are advocating correcting the system by letting most of the wrongdoers off the hook while forcing the victims to shoulder the burden.

That's just plain not fair.

[AP]

81. One full page of print, which might cost the mnfg 1 penny, and it protects

them from a failure to warn suit that could be worth 100s of thousands.

Sounds like a good deal for manufactures.

Manufactures LOVE warnings, even though some tort reformers pretend they're just a sign of the legal system gone bad (with the emphasis on "pretend").

[AP]

19. And the reason McDonalds knowlingly jacked up heat to dangerous levels

was to save money.

If it was really hot, the heat would kill bacteria and they'd have to change the coffee less often.

McDs is such a huge company, the jury decided that the only way they'd really change their policies would be if the damage award was a fair approximation of the profits they made from not having to change the coffee so much.

If McD's were a smaller company, the award would have been lower. Becuase they're a large company, they only way they'd notice the hurt was with a big award.

[johncoby2]

24. The award was reduced.

The jury gave $3Million. It was reduced by the judge to $1.4 Million and then a settlement was reached.

[AP]

25. No doubt because Republicans had appointed a majority of the appeals ct

judges, and they're only there to protect big insurance companies and big businesses from large damage awards which would actually force them to change their corporate policies.

[serryjw]

44. What about an OVEN>.......

"you must use a potholder when removing food from hot oven" I have a microwave..It says nothing about WHAT kind of dishes I can put in there. Are we dumbing down America to the point that 'common sense' is not expected anymore?

I did a VERY stupid thing. While I taking my bath I put a lit candle on top of the plastic vanity that is around my potty! Yes, yes it was stupid. i melted part of the plastic vanity. It was totally my fault. I was tired and didn't think. Should the manufactureer replace it?

[AP]

78. Uh, that makes no sense.

McDonalds knew that turning up the heat on the coffee increased the risk that people would get injured but they did it anyway. Why? Because they have thousands of stores around the world and making half as much coffee could result in billions of dollars in profits and because they thought that if people did get injured they'd use arguments like yours in court. They'd try to shift the blame on the consumer.

Well, you know what. Consumers are NOT used to having coffee at the temperature McDonalds served theirs at. It was DANGEROUS. It was REALLY REALLY hot, and they put it in flimsy cups they knew people would take out to their cars and they didn't care.

Incidentally, if your LANDLOARD wanted to sue YOU for negligently damaging her vanity, she'd have a decent claim. That would be the appropriate analogy.

[johncoby2]

23. Also she wasnt driving the car

And the car was stopped. This is rarely discussed in the famous case.

[AP]

26. and it's not reported because we shouldn't expect the very corporations

who want to protect themselves from large damage awards to tell us the truth about something bad one of their own did.

You see a lot of ads for McDs on the media channels? Yep. Don't expect them to bite the hand that feeds.

[serryjw]

33. Liability VS Malpractice??

I was a victim of medical malpractice. I had a Breast biopsy in '92 and he screwed up and 'nicked' an artery, I lost 5 pints of blood!. I almost bleed to death. I didn't want to bury him, I didn't want millions I only wanted his insurance carrier to pay the $5000 bill on ambulance and emergency room.I was to told by the lawyer that it would take 5 years and 10's of thousands. The insurance company would never settle. There should be MINI arbitration hearings for something like this that could get settled quickly.

As for major malpractice.....

1) The AMA has to stop protecting BAD doctors
2) NO one is worth more in death than they are in life.The insurance companies have actuary tables. Take the years of life left multiply by a reasonable earning forecast and triple it for loss of life and 'pain and suffering
EXAMPLE: $50K/annual income X 30 years left of life=$1.5 millions X 3 for loss of life + $4.5 MILLION
This is far not $30 MILLION or some silly number.The attorney should work for some where around 10% of the settlement and it should get settled thru arbitration within 1 year ....NOT 5!

The problem with lawsuits is that BOTH attorneys try to make MORE money by paperwork going back and forth for way to long. I settled a lawsuit 18 months later that I would have accepted 18 months before.I made the same money BUT my attorney made a lot more.

LIABILITY..........MOST product liability is KNOWN by companies BEFORE they just ignor it and hope the settlemnets are LESS than fixing the problem would cost. The POTENSIAL loss is outrageous. The BIG Edwards case was a perfect example. The company has the problem BEFORE and several kids had MAJOR problems and loss of life.UNTIL these companies start doing the RIGHT THING they have to be hit in the pocketbook for 10's of millions. SAD but true.

I disagree with yur example of the McDonalds case. We DO have to have some personal reasponsililtiy for our actions. SHE was old, had hot coffee in a moving car and was NOT holding the cup. A SAD accident BUT this was nOT MCD"S fault IMHO!

[JimmyJazz]

38. Product liability is usually known, you are correct, but the

examples I have provided are cases where the product was not used for the purpose for which it was intended. IMHO, if you mis-use a product and something happens, you should not be able to sue. There is a ton of case law on this subject and it involves assumption of the risk, whether or not a manufacturer could forese that a product might be used for something other than for which it was manufactured and a whole host of other issues which cannot be resolved on this thread.

I am sorry that you had a bad experience with the legal system. However, Plaintiffs lawyers don't usually make more money by having a case drag on for years since they work on contingency fees. It is in their interests to do the work as quickly and efficiently as possible. You are absolutely correct that a lot of defense lawyers "paper their files" in an effort to increase billable hours.

I also agree that arbitration can be an excellent way to proceed and many states are increasing the amounts an arbitrator can award so that more cases will go that direction. Also, there is the issue of binding v. non-binding arbitration, but that's for a different time.

[serryjw]

40. You are correct......

Billable hours are the down fall of justice. It is absurd what they do just to increase their incomes.

I also agree that there has to be some personal resonsibity. If you use a product incorrectly, you are doing it at your own risk.When a defense attorney takes a case on contingency they are doing so because they believe it is a good case,or they are wasting there time. The opposing counsel in my case just gave their client very bad advice. He prolonged this way longer than nessessary. In the end I got what I wanted.

[JimmyJazz]

52. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't agree that

a plaintiff's lawyer takes only cases he or she know are "good" - sometimes if the damages are severe, but the liability weak, they will take the case and play on the sympathy factor and on the potential exposure of a company. These lawyers are in the minority, but they are the ones who give all plaintiffs lawyers the title of "ambulance chaser."

I am glad your case resolved in your favor. I know I am beginning to sound conservative, but it's really just on this one issue. You see, when all is said and done, I believe frivolous lawsuits hurt the people who are truly in need.

[lastliberalintexas]

41. It's called foreseeable misuse

Manufacturers know or should know that individuals will misuse a product in a certain manner, and as such are typically required to make the product safe for that misuse. The easiest example I can think of right now is someone using the "head" of the screwdriver to hammer a nail in. That's one reason that the head will be made of shatterproof materials.

And so you know, asbestos is actually still manufactured and used in numerous products even today. Raybestos brake pads and the like.


Are you in the legal profession? Not to be too snippy here, but you might want to do a little more research on these issues before expressing opinions without knowing the facts. There are quite a few attorneys here, after all.

[JimmyJazz]

48. We are saying the same thing.

Of course I know asbestos is still used. I don't know why you have the impression that I don't. I am not saying people shouldn't sue asbestos manufacturers. What they did was wrong. They knew the product was dangerous and failed to warn and failed to take it off the market. My beef is with the plaintiffs lawyer who pulls a trailer up to a work site with a doctor and an x-ray machine and says he is offering free asbestos screenings. Then, every other worker has some evidence of pleural plaques or pleural thickening and sues the asbestos manufacturer even though he has no symptoms and even though you can get pleural plaques from a blow to the chest. I include with these people, those who sue even though they have a long history of smoking and they have an illness such as lung cancer or COPD. I am absolutely excluding those who have asbestosis and meso.

As to the product liability issue, I question how far a manufacturer has to go to protect the public from their own lack of judgment. I am not talking about using a screw driver to hammer a nail. That is reasonable to assume. I am talking about sticking the hose of a hairdryer under your covers to keep yourself warm at night and not having any sense to realize the thing could heat up and burn you.

As for your argument that you are right and I am wrong and I don't know what I am talking about - well, you just single handedly solved the litigation problem! No need to have lawsuits because the consumer is always right - just step up and collect your check from the nearest deep pocket.

What issues have I not stated factually? In an effort to discredit my opinion regarding plaintiffs who sue asbestos companies, you give me "asbestos is still be manufactured" - how is that relevant to frivolous lawsuits. And, your example of a screw driver falls with the context of "reasonable to foresee."

Here's what I'm talking about: http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0

[lastliberalintexas]

49. Yes, I have no idea where that might have come from

The idea that you thought asbestos was no longer manufactured, that is. Maybe from this?

"If it weren't for guys like him (Edwards), asbestos would still be manufactured and people would still be dying in Pintos!"

*Would still be* seems to imply that you thought it no longer was. Sorry if I took your words to mean- well, what they mean. :-)


I also never said that you were wrong or that I was right about something (anything?). I simply pointed out that your "facts" concerning so many of these cases keep turning out to be wrong- you've conceded as much in a couple of posts. I guess I just never realized there was *almost* as much anti-lawyer sentiment on our side of the aisle. :shrug:

[JimmyJazz]

51. You are correct. I mis-wrote. I was thinking in terms of

pipe covering, blanket insulation, cement, etc. I was thinking that in 1972 it was banned in refineries, houses, schools, ships, etc. You are absolutely correct. I am wrong. No one ever files a frivolous lawsuit. I stand corrected.

[JimmyJazz]

59. What are trying to say? I am not anti-lawyer at all. I have no idea

where you got that impression. I start off by saying that lawyers have done a whole lot of good for this country, but agree with Edwards that something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits. If no lawsuits filed are ever frivolous, then why did Edwards himself mention it at the debate?

I provided examples of what I believe are frivolous lawsuits. I'm not sure why anyone here believes that spraying a lit candle with perfume is the act of a reasonable person. Again, that is the case that immediately comes to mind when I think of these kinds of cases because it is the case I recall as being held up as an example.

Perhaps you could provide an example of what you consider to be frivolous? Or do you think Edwards was wrong when he said there is a need for a 3 strikes rule?

[PA Democrat]

57. Plaintiff's attorneys generally work on a contingency fee basis

I don't understand your remark:

"The problem with lawsuits is that BOTH attorneys try to make MORE money by paperwork going back and forth for way to long. I settled a lawsuit 18 months later that I would have accepted 18 months before.I made the same money BUT my attorney made a lot more."

It is only the defense attorney whose corporate clients have deep pockets that benefit from delaying a case and by burying the plaintiff's attorney in paperwork.

[AP]

84. I think you got the McD facts wrong. Read the other posts here and tell me

...if you still feel the same way.

[miss_kitty]

58. I got burns in the same area from radiation treatments

and ended up with a big ol' morphine shot. I have seen pictures of her injuries, and having been burned to less of a crackly crunch than she was, I can't even imagine the pain she endured.

A lot of people who get a cash rewards for injuries caused by the payer will tell you they'd go back to the way they were before the 'accident' that caused their injury-unless they are liars

:hi:

[KharmaTrain]

5. Arbitration, Better Regulation

The slam on trial lawyers is one of the worst slander jobs I've seen in this campaign. Last night I heard a GOOP slimer always attach the word "trial lawyer" to John Edwards like he was a child molester.

Of course Repugnicans hate trial lawyers since they're usually on the receiving end of their suits...and for damned good reason. It's trial lawyers who are many people's only protection against the rich and powerful that these assholes do their dirty work for. It's also their only protection in a system that determine "justice" based on how much one can afford to pay. The gaul of these assholes to demean not only the lawyers, who do their work honestly and ethically, but the folks they represent who usually have suffered life altering episodes or worse.

We need a comprehensive look at why lawsuit are brought in the first place, and yes, some guidelines, not on what a person can sue for or for how much, but what constitutes negligence and what reaches the "test" (as in GLOBAL test) to be brought to trial. I like the concept of an arbitration panel to determine merit and if a lawyer is seen to abuse civil laws in a frivolous manner (and this includes coroprate lawyers who love to stifle competition with harassment suits and C&Ds) can be prevented from issuing those suits.

Also we need a government that holds the largest corporations accountable for their greed. No one need to be told a horror story about a health care provider, HMO or insurance company and the circus and expense all their paperwork and games play.

Insurance companies never lose money, they adjust their rates based on what's happened as opposed to what's happening or going to happen. Thus when incomes go up (like those of the rich and their tax breaks) that's figured into the costs of doing business and as the economy "expands" (artificially) insurance rates are moved up in anticipation that all other costs, including lawsuits, will rise as well.

If litigation was that terrible, we'd see insurance companies folding...instead their some of the biggest jewels in the large banks tiarra...and high time their practices were closely examined.

[JimmyJazz]

21. excellent post - well said

[lastliberalintexas]

43. We have that already

The law concerning what constitutes negligence is as settled as it can be in a system in which juries make fact-based decisions. Anything else and you're talking about a wholesale "reformation" of our civil justice system.

And arbitration panels can work in situations where time is of the essence, as in cases of people denied medical treatment by their insurer or HMO. But even that arbitration must be non-binding. Arbitration is not really very good for the individual, which is why Corporate America is pushing it. Arbitrators tend to be far more defense friendly than juries, which is why they see this development as good for business.

We also already have a system in place to deal with "frivolous" lawsuits. Lawyes can and are sanctioned by the state bar associations (far more than doctors, might I add). Suits are dismissed and costs assessed in situations where a truly frivolous suit was filed.


Please keep in mind that many of the most egregious cases you hear about might not be cases at all. A couple of years ago an email was circulated for the so-called Darwin Awards. In that email, the writer discussed a supposed lawsuit against Winebago for a man who thought he could use the cruise control while he went to the back and made a sandwich. He of course crashed and supposedly sued Winebago for damages.

Guess what? No one could actually locate any such lawsuit- I think ATLA was the organization which researched that alleged incident to no avail.


on edit- It was the Stella Awards. Here is a link I found from a very quick google search. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/lawsuits.html

[German-Lefty]

6. Look too other countries - in Germany

We pay out way less, but you still have a right to sue. Actually in Germany if someone is killed by a company they pay out the what I call the slave value of the person ie. how much money that person would earn for his family for the rest of his life. I think a middle can be found. We have to ask ourselves some tough questions:
1) How much is a human life worth? How much should a company have to pay for causing a death?
2) How much is suffering worth? How would we measure it? It shouldn't be cheaper to kill someone than let them suffer.
3) What type of risks should one be able to disclaim? If a surgical procedure has a 50% chance of death, and the patient is ok with that, he shouldn't be able to sue after wards. On the flip side though you can't have every company disclaiming all responsibility for their products and services.

The problem as I have heard it in the states is that the courts you certain precedence cases to calculate really dumb values for settlements.

This is similar to sentencing guidelines.

And of course we have to watch out for big business.

[Wind Dancer]

8. Great website.

Department of Justice Study Disproves Tort "Reform" Myths

A report recently released by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics deflates many of the myths that so-called "tort reformers" use to condemn our civil justice system. The August 2000 report, "Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996," is the third in a series of reports based on a survey of the 75 largest counties in the United States. Report highlights include the following:

Tort "Reform" Myth: Punitive damages are awarded too often and are too high, resulting in a plaintiff’s lottery tort system.
Study Says: Wrong! Punitive damages are very rare, and when awarded they are small. Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3% of the tort trials won by plaintiffs. According to the report, the median punitive damage award in 1996 was only $38,000, not the millions awarded in rare but highly publicized cases covered by the media. The likelihood of a punitive damage award varied with the kind of tort alleged. Of the cases studies, only 3 asbestos trials, or 3.2% of asbestos trials, resulted in a punitive damage award, and those plaintiffs received only $1,100 each in punitive damages. Only 3, or 1.1%, of the medical malpractice cases resulted in punitive damage awards. Of the products liability trials (excluding asbestos) studied, only 11, or 12.5%, resulted in punitive damage awards.

Tort "Reform" Myth: Damage awards are escalating out of control.
Study Says: Wrong! The amounts awarded to plaintiffs for economic, non-economic, and punitive damages are decreasing dramatically. Juries are awarding smaller amounts to winning plaintiffs, particularly in automobile tort cases. Between 1992 and 1996, jury awards declined by 47%, from $57,000 to $30,000. This is strong evidence that juries are being polluted by media reports and the tort "reformers’" message that punitive damages are only a "lottery win" for prevailing plaintiffs. This study shows the need to educate the public, and therefore potential jurors, of the valuable deterrent effect of punitive damages on dangerous and harmful products and conduct.

Tort "Reform" Myth: Juries get caught up in the emotion of a trial, ignore the law and find for sympathetic plaintiffs.
Study Says: Wrong! The "Runaway Jury" theory is a myth. Judges are more likely than juries to decide in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs win in tort trial cases 48% of the time. Moreover, they are more likely to win tort trials decided by a judge (57%) than a jury (48%). The likelihood of a plaintiff winning varies among the kinds of torts. Generally, plaintiffs fare best with bench trials in premises liability, product liability (excluding asbestos), and medical malpractice cases. In premises liability trials, verdicts are in favor of the plaintiff 52% of the time when decided by a judge, compared to 38% of the time when decided by a jury. Plaintiffs won 63% of automobile tort trials before judges but only 57% before juries. In medical malpractice trials, plaintiffs won 38% of bench verdicts but only 23% of jury verdicts. An even more profound difference is found in product liability torts (excluding asbestos), where plaintiffs win 70% of trials decided by a judge and 31% decided by juries.

Tort "Reform" Myth: Juries are more likely then judges to award punitive damages.
Study Says: Wrong! In fact, plaintiffs seeking punitive damages fare better with judges than with juries, according to the study. In 1996 tort trials decided by a judge, punitive damages were awarded in 8% of the trials, compared to 3% of jury trials.

Tort "Reform" Myth: The tort system has been turned into a lottery system favoring plaintiffs.
Study Says: Wrong! Awards -- both compensatory and punitive -- are much smaller than is commonly perceived, whether they are handed out by judges or juries. The median final award to plaintiffs who won their tort trials in 1996 was $31,000 -- far less than the millions awarded in the few cases reported in the popular press. Damages of over $250,000 (including compensatory and punitive damages) were awarded to only 17% of plaintiff winners of all tort trials in the 75 largest counties. Only about 6% were awarded $1 million or more.

more

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=5671

[johncoby2]

9. The Myth of Tort Reform

http://www.democrats.us/editorial/cobarruvias071004.shtml

The tort reform movement, which originated in Texas under then Governor George W. Bush, has resulted in loss of our access to hold corporations accountable and is now being touted by "The Reformer with Results", as the solution to the insurance crisis and medical malpractice across the United States. The history and damage of tort reform, in Bush's home state of Texas should be enough to convince Americans that we are being lied to. Again.

[lastliberalintexas]

45. That was a good article

But the idea of tort "reform" didn't actually originate with Shrub. We've been fighting that battle for many, many years.

[kizzy]

10. Edwards proposed this some time ago

He co-sponsored legislation that does this but the Senate Republicans refuse to move on it. Big surprise.

Here's more:

Helping Doctors and Patients

The rising cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is getting in the way of good health care. In rural areas, some specialists can no longer afford to practice, and patients can't get the care they need. We need to fix this problem now, and we need to fix it in a way that is consistent with the doctors' own Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Unfortunately, President Bush's proposed prescription comes straight off the insurance companies' wish list: a sharp limit on the compensation these companies have to pay children and parents who have been blinded, paralyzed, or otherwise severely injured. The victims who make the least money will suffer the most under this plan. The harm to the kinds of families I represented as a lawyer for nearly 20 years will be enormous.

What the president's proposal won't do is work. Insurance premiums have spiked recently because of insurance companies' losses on their investments, not their losses to victims. In fact, about half the states already have some limits on victim compensation, yet premiums in states with caps average about the same as premiums in states without caps. California finally controlled rates not by attacking victims - that didn't work - but by reforming the insurance industry and rolling back premium increases.

We need a real solution that frees doctors from crippling insurance costs - without preventing the most injured victims from receiving the compensation they deserve.

That real solution has three elements. Most important, we need to crack down on price gouging by the industry. We also need aggressive action against frivolous lawsuits that don't belong in court - not against the serious lawsuits that bring help to the most injured. And finally, we need to reduce the number of medical errors, many made by a very small fraction of the medical profession.

The most critical step is reforming the insurance industry. Today, insurance companies use slow and burdensome processes to discourage both doctors and patients from filing legitimate claims. Worse still, these companies can fix prices and divvy up the country in order to drive up their profits. Even when companies don't explicitly collude, they set their rates based on a trade-group loss calculation that they know other companies will follow. In any other industry, this kind of conduct would be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws. But an obscure 1945 law gives insurance companies a broad antitrust exemption. Because of the insurance lobby's influence, Congress has even blocked the Federal Trade Commission from investigating insurance company rip-offs. These special privileges must go.

Next, we need to prevent and punish frivolous lawsuits. Most lawyers are responsible advocates for their clients, but the few who aren't hurt the real victims, undercut the credibility of the legal system and clog our courts. For all his talk about frivolous lawsuits, President Bush does nothing to address them. He's got it backwards - instead of cracking down on irresponsible behavior and baseless cases, he's targeting serious victims who win in court and are believed by juries.

Before a lawyer can bring a medical malpractice case to court, we should require that he or she swear that an expert doctor is ready to testify that real malpractice has occurred. Lawyers who file frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions. Lawyers who file three frivolous cases should be forbidden from bringing another suit for the next 10 years - in other words, three strikes and you're out.

Finally, we can reduce malpractice premiums by helping to reduce malpractice. The Institute of Medicine found that at least 44,000 people die from preventable medical errors every year. In medicine, as in law, a few people cause the most problems: Only 5 percent of doctors have paid malpractice claims more than once since 1990. This same 5 percent is responsible for over half of all claims paid. One part of the problem is state medical boards whose discipline is as lax as state bar associations?. We need to provide resources and incentives for boards to adopt real standards on the "three strikes" model. At the same time, we need to encourage doctors to report more medical errors voluntarily, so we can learn more about systemic problems.

Together, these measures will give relief to most doctors who are suffering under the staggering weight of insurance premiums. But where premiums still cause shortages of medical care, Washington must provide a temporary subsidy so good doctors can continue their essential work. We shouldn't pad insurers' profits and hurt people who have already suffered immensely, as the president proposes. But we should protect good doctors and the patients who depend on them.

May 20, 2003

http://edwards.senate.gov/~edwards/press/2003/columns/4_helpingdoctorsandpatients.html

[newyawker99]

31. Hi kizzy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kizzy]

34. Thank you!

[Heyo]

11. I agree that....

.. if people are injured by somebody else's mistake or incompetence, they should be awarded restitution. One problem I have is somebody can sue you and ruin your life, even if you win the case, it will break you financially and can basically destroy your life. The lawyer/judge/legal system should not be a club used to bash people over the head.

I am perfectly fine with a "loser pays" system. If you sue somebody frivolously over some BS reason, it's on you. This way cases with merit will get damages for the victim, but then maybe some of the more sue-happy people among us will think twice.

Heyo

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Insurance co's blocked LOSER PAYS because they are usually the losers

It would give incentive to plaintiff's attornies to run the costs of cases HIGHER.

[kizzy]

36. Some people lose, not because they have a bad case

A loser pays system would completely chill the rights of poor people who, fearful that they might lose their case and have to pay the defendant money they don't have, would be unlikely to seek justice in the courts.

Our system already provides for those who file and lose frivolous suits to pay the winner. But all losing lawsuits are not frivolous.

[Heyo]

63. Don't get me wrong..

.. the last thing I want is for people who really feel they deserve justice to not get it.

But the rate of lawsuits has us in such a risk-adverse society, that peole are afraid to do anything innovative, for fear that some asshole will sue them.

If I sell you a screwdriver, and you stab yourself in the eye with it, that is not may fault. But you can sue me, you will lose, but that could still put me in the poorhouse having to defend myself. There has to be some happy medium where companies are willing to take some risk in order to introduce new products that would be really helpful, for example vaccines. I am sure alot more companies would be working on vaccines and things like that, but with the risk that one lawsuit could sink you, whether it has merit or not, or that some well funded, overzealous consumer advocacy group will bludgeon you out of existence just to justify it's own existence, it's just not worth it.

Heyo

[lastliberalintexas]

70. Yep, it has nothing to do with that *mercury*

that was used in those vaccines. Eli Lilly should be exempt from suit if the mercury caused mental retardation (or worse) in your son or daughter because, hey, we're too litigious as a society.

Yep, it would be all the fault of that evil trial lawyer for suing Lilly and putting those poor, poor souls out of business. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they knowingly manufactured and sold a dangerous product when safer (but more expensive) alternatives existed. Honest. :eyes:



And can you provide a cite to that case where someone sued a tool manufacturer because they poked their eye out with a screwdriver? I'd be verrrry interested to see that. If it really exists (see my post about the fabricated Stella Awards). :-)

[Heyo]

79. I don't know...

... how you turned what I said into saying that Lilly should get away with releasing a vaccine contaminated with mercury. That pretty well falls under the "legitimate" category as far as lawsuits go... wouldn't you think?

I think you might've missed the point, no offense.

"And can you provide a cite to that case where someone sued a tool manufacturer because they poked their eye out with a screwdriver?"

Of course not, it's was a extra-blunt hypothetical example I used to make a point. (Although now that you mention it, I wouldn't be too surprised... I could picture it now.."there weren't proper instructions on how to grip it!")

:toast:

Heyo

[lastliberalintexas]

86. I thought it might be one of those

Stella Awards cases that are cited in emails but don't exist. You never know, and I thought that one might at least be entertaining. :-)


I used the mercury/vaccine cases because that was actually one of the issues brought up by Shrub in the last couple of years. He and his cohorts pushed for immunity from suit for this very issue, trying to save Lilly millions of dollars in the process. The only problem they ran into was that they tried to attach it to one of the Homeland Security bills, and that offended even some repubs. So I don't think pharma is actually immune for the mercury content of the vaccines with which they poisoned children, but it's not because the repubs didn't try.

Just trying to show a real world example of how bad the "tort reformers" are. Sorry that it seemed like it was directed at you personally!

[On the Road]

12. Remember the Reason the Laws Exist

A hundred years ago, manufacturers routinely put out dangerous products such as kerosene heaters that malfuntioned and burned down entire apartments buldings. Landlords built tenements without fire escapes and overcrowded them. Thousands died every year in those fires, and there was no recouse for consumers or corporate responsiblity.

Employers like railroads, factories, and mine operators maintained dangerous working conditions. Brakemen fell off icy boxcars or got their hands mangled by cheap couplings. Millworkers had their clothing caught in machinery and were injured or killed. Mines collapsed. There was no worker's comp, disability, or class action lawsuits. The bosses just went outside to the line of job seekers and said "Next."

[lastliberalintexas]

46. Sad

that even some on this site would apparently prefer to let us return to the days of Upton Sinclair. Good post ribofunk.

[funkybutt]

13. Why do the conservatives care so much about this?

From -> Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives

I found this to be a very interesting point

"Or tort reform, which means putting limits on awards in lawsuits. Tort reform is a top priority for conservatives. Why do conservatives care so much about this? Well, as soon as you see the effects, you can see why they care. Because in one stroke you prohibit all of the potential lawsuits that will be the basis of future environmental legislation and regulation. That is, it is not just regulation of the chemical industry or the coal industry or the nuclear power industry or other things that are at stake. IT is the regulation of EVERYTHING. If parties who are harmed cannot sue immoral or negligent corporations or professionals for significant sums, the compainies are free to harm the public in unlimited ways in the course of making money. And lawyers, who take risks and make significant investments in such cases, will no longer make enough money to support the risk. And corporations will be free to ignore the public good. That is what "tort reform" is about. "

He goes on to talk about ho much of the democrats funding comes from tort lawyers. 'Tort "reform as conservatives call it- cuts off this source of money' in effect, defunding the democratic party. Also "what conseratives are REALLY trying to achieve is not in the proposal. What they are trying to achieve FOLLOWS from enacting the proposal. They don't care primarily about the lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and worker protections in general. And they care about defunding the Democratic Party. That is what a strategic initiative is"

[funkybutt]

15. "Malpractice relief" -- I like the way that sounds

we need to start repeating that as much as possible.Just like the GOP did with "tax relief" . Now that's good framing!

[Minimus]

18. Read this great article : How the GOP milks a bogus doctors' ins crisis

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0310.mencimer.html

<snip>
Despite evidence of insurance company shenanigans, though, doctors put the blame for their insurance woes on trial lawyers, malpractice suits, and juries.


This is an issue near and dear to my heart. Mainly for two reasons:

1. I am an insurance agent - I sell health insurance and I know that the #1 driving force behind the increase in premiums is DRUG COSTS. And I hate that the people that need the coverage cannot afford it because the insurance companies rate them up so much. How about $3000 a month for coverage because you have had some health issues in the past? I see this every day!

2. I was a victim of an unscrupulous Doctor. It was an Orthodontist so I do consider myself lucky that I was not physically harmed. This Dr. closed his office one day, no notice what so ever. He had my $5000 along with alot of other patients that had pre paid for their treatment. The real kicker is no other Dentist or Orthodontist would step forward and assist the patients he abandoned in mid treatment. I also learned that this was not the first time this Dr had financial troubles and many Doctors knew this. So here is a "professional" out there stealing money and none of his colleagues will speak out -they actually even refer patients to him!

The state dental board did not revoke his license. He is practicing in another city now and his only punishment is probation. If he takes prepayment for treatment he must put it in a separate account.

So why doesn't the dental board or medical board hold these doctors accountable? Because the people on the board are doctors and they protect each other.

Sorry for the rage and ramble but this issue really gets my goat! And I work with a bunch of right wing nut jobs. One even has a bumpersticker that says: If you think your health insurance costs too much. Blame John Edwards.

AAARRRGGGH:mad:


on edit: Please don't hold it against me that I hold a license to sell insurance.

[merh]

20. Repukes don't want tort reform (most defense lawyers are

rich repukes and would be out of work with it). GOP usings it as a talking point - like abortion - they don't really want the laws passed or too restrictive, they just use them to stump on. It is pure BS and folks buy it.

Here is one bill proposed by repug in a repug controlled legislature that would have been useful and that would have helped with "too many frivolous malpractice suits" filings. The bill never made it out of committee.

House Bill 1204
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF TORT DISPUTES FOR MEDIATION; TO PROVIDE THAT THE MISSISSIPPI BAR SHALL APPOINT MEDIATORS; TO PROVIDE THAT ANY APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS SHALL BE SUSPENDED WHILE A DISPUTE IS IN MEDIATION; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

SECTION 1. (1) Before any civil suit involving a tort may be filed, the dispute must be submitted for mediation. The Mississippi Bar shall appoint and certify mediators for such disputes. Mediators shall be members of the Mississippi Bar who have been engaged in the active practice of law for a minimum of five (5) years. The mediator shall make every effort to help parties resolve their dispute in order to avoid litigation. Upon written notice of a claim involving a tort being delivered in person or by registered certified United States mail upon any individual who may be properly served with process for such an individual or entity, any applicable statute of limitation shall be suspended. The statute of limitations shall remain suspended while a dispute is in mediation. Mediation shall be informal and rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence shall be relaxed. Mediation under this act shall be nonbinding unless the parties agree in writing to make the mediation binding. Any matter which is submitted for mediation under this act which is not resolved may not be filed as civil action until ninety (90) days after the termination of mediation or upon receipt by the claimant of a written notice of denial of claim.

(2) Every notice of claim under this section shall contain a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, including the circumstances which brought about the injury, the extent of the injury, the time and place the injury occurred, the names of all persons known to be involved, the amount of money damages sought and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the injury and at the time of filing the notice.

SECTION 2. This act shall not be construed to take away from the courts their power over awards, nor to make invalid any award good at common law. This act shall be liberally construed for the encouragement of the settlement of disputes and the prevention of litigation.

SECTION 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2004.

[JimmyJazz]

39. I don't want to stir the pot, but I know a lot of defense lawyers and

only one is a Republican (but she's an idiot). In fact, all the lawyers I work with are staunch Democrats as are most of the support staff.

Maybe in other states defense lawyers tend to be repukes, but in Delaware, I think a lot, if not most, are dems.

BTW, it's the Plaintiff's lawyers who tend to be richer than the defense lawyers. Not that defense lawyers are poor, but they aren't exactly buying ball teams like Peter Angelos or hanging out with the Clintons like Perry Weitz. IMHO.

[lastliberalintexas]

47. So, so much misinformation

Yes, there is a small group of uber wealthy plaintiffs' attorneys in this country. That, however, is not the lion's share of those who work in the legal field. By and large, defense attorneys do make more than plaintiffs' attorneys or general practicioners. Do a google search and see the difference in salary ranges. Quite significant.

[merh]

54. BTW - you are wrong on the riches of the plaintiff's lawyers.

There is a minority of plaintiff's lawyers that are disgustingly wealthy, but they are the minority. Most are just trying to make a living. Having worked in both plaintiff and defense firms, the defense lawyers are the wealthier of the two. They charge by the hour and they stretch out the litigation to continue being able to bill their clients (insurance companies, corporations, etc.). They have the ability and the resources to afford experts that the plaintiff's struggle to afford, their expenses are paid by the clients. If a plaintiff's attorney loses, he is out his time and the money he spent on expenses, such as experts, office expenses (copies, long distance telephone calls, mileage, postage, depo costs, etc).

Most defense lawyers I know are repukes!

[JimmyJazz]

56. Okay, I'll accept that. I know where I work,

it's the plaintiffs lawyers who are the wealthier of the two groups, but I could see how in different areas of the law that would be different. Also, where I work, the entire firm is comprised of Democrats, with the exception of one wing nut. Before I get jumped on, we are not one of those "bill out the yin-yang" firms. We have one client who keeps a close eye and budgets our billables.

And, I don't mean, democrat as in "yeah, I'm gonna vote for Kerry." I mean Democrat as in "I read Harper's" and "my girlfriend is working on the Kerry campaign." It may be just an anomaly because I work in a blue state, but that is my perspective.

[merh]

76. A very fortunate anomaly - that is why your state has remained

blue! You are blessed your state dems have not been tainted by the concept that GOP is the only way to achieve riches.

[JimmyJazz]

82. Ah but were that true - I work in Delaware, but I live in PA

Rick Santorum is a total tool, but that is for another thread! I do however, take great pleasure in knowing my republican parents do live in Delaware. Joe Biden is the bane of my father's existence!

[skygazer]

42. My problem with tort reform

The point of these multi million dollar awards is not so much to "reward" someone for being injured or killed or whatever - it is a judgement against the entity responsible for hurting them.

If there was a $250,000 limit on compensation, what kind of incentive does that give a multi-billion dollar corporation to change their ways? It's a slap on the wrist. It's a lot of money to you or I but it's a drop in the bucket to the actual perpetrator.

We hear a lot about "frivolous" lawsuits and there are probably are plenty of them. However, it's easy to label something as frivolous when you don't have all the facts of the case. Unless I'm on a jury hearing all the evidence, I'm not going to pass judgment - the media only prints the barest outlines of details and often in a tabloid fashion - the infamous McDonald's coffee case is an example. There was much more to it than some dummy spilling her coffee.

Without severe penalties for screwing up, there is no reason for these companies to change. They're not going to do it for humanitarian purposes. Money talks with them. That's why they want tort reform.

[beaconess]

55. Caps won't stop frivolous suits - they'll only hurt the most deserving

persons.

Most frivolous suits are settled long before trial, usually for "nuisance value." The chance of getting up ONLY $250,000 won't stop anyone who is filing a bogus suit just to get some cash. The cap will, however, hurt those persons who have actually been seriously and permanently injured and who deserve much more compensation. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars wouldn't even come close to compensating the woman who mistakenly had both breasts removed or the little girl who had her insides sucked out by a knowingly faulty pool drain and certainly wouldn't deter any wrongdoing by the defendants in the future since $250,000 would be chump change to most of them.

Caps are all about protecting the business interests of the Bush Cheney pals.

[AP]

80. Too true, and not pointed out often enough.

The bigger the corporation, the bigger the gift caps are. It's like a license to be more negligent as you get bigger. It would put small businesses at such an incredible competitive disadvantage. They'd have to pay the same rates for insurance coverage as big companies. Hell, a lot of big companies would probably just self-insure. That means that insurance companies would bleed dry small businesses until they were all gone.

[liberal N proud]

60. Good Answer!

What the F*&* will taking away the patients right to sue do for anything.
Give the doctors free reign, if they fuck up, Oh Well you can't sue.
That make sense doesn't it!

[DebinTx]

74. Corporations file the most lawsuits

as compared to individuals, so tort reform ought to be addressed within the corporate world, not on the backs of individuals.

Unfortunately, I found this out well after shrub passed tort reform through in Texas.

[MadHound]

85. Sorry friend, but I don't buy into any of the reasons for this bogus BS

First off, look who is putting the muscle behind this, the Republicans. And guess who is consistently the number one donor to the Democrats. Trial lawyers and the trial lawyer associations. Look who is backing the Republicans on this move. Big business and the AMA who want to remove the oversight, and big stick, that keeps them from making shoddy unsafe merchandise, or performing substandard work. Now then, let us look at the real reasons for malpractice insurance going up.

First, realize that the vast majority of profits made by insurance companies comes from investments, playing the market. Gee what a coincedence that just at the time the market started tanking in the late '00s, early '01s, medical malpratice premiums really started taking off. And the lower the market dropped, the higher the premiums went, and the doctors started screaming. But even in states like CT, where they implemented tort reform, the premiums haven't gone down, because the price of premiums hasn't gone up because of increasing lawsuits, the number of malpractice suits have gone down, nor due to increasing amounts rewarded, the amounts have actually gone down over the past ten years. It is directly related to the fact that the insurance companies made poor investment choices and lost their ass in the crash of the early 21st century, and instead of eating like you and I would be forced to, they are passing it onto their customers in the form of higher premiums. And as a twofer, rather than own up to what they're doing, instead they blame trial lawyers, in the hopes of getting caps for malpractice suits. And the AMA is going along with this so as their shoddier members can continue to spread injury and death with no muss or fuss.

There is also something else going on to affect this equation, and that is the unprecedented number of disasters that have happened over the past fifteen years. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fire, all of these disasters have been occuring with ever greater frequency, causing an ever greater amount of damage. The insurance companies have been caught flat footed by this, and are spreading their losses out among all types of insurance customers, including doctors. So, in other words, part of that malpractice premium my brother in law is paying is actually going to pay for the damage caused by Ivan, or Frances or . . . And you and I are feeling the impacts also. I recently heard an article on NPR concerning the impact on insurance premiums that these hurricanes last month will have. Well, homeowners' insurance in Florida is going to be going up by at least sixty percent. But guess what, you and I can expect an increase in our homeowners premiums of up to thirty percent, simply to pay for the shortfall from these hurricanes.

Insurance is the perfect scam. It is legally required to have(at least in most states), and all of the costs, be they honest ones or costs incurred from the companies own fuckups, are passed onto the consumer, along with a hefty hike to pad the profit margin. Given huge political clout they have, along with little federal or state oversight, and what you've got is a large extortion racket preying off of the hard work, blood, sweat and tears of each and every single one of us.

Rather than having tort reform, what we need is insurance reform, otherwise we're all going to be screwed.

[kizzy]

88. Insurance is the only industry besides MLB exempted from anti-trust laws

They can engage in all manner of anti-trust activities that no other industry can do. Among them is blatant and outrageous price gouging of physicians who, for some reason, are all too willing to do their bidding by blaming their skyrocketing malpractice costs on trial lawyers.

Democrats have been fighting to take away this exemption, but - big surprise - Republicans and their insurance company contributors fight them tooth and nail.