RSSThe Positive and Negatives for Tort Reform
Dennis AuBuchon | October 24, 2009
Tort reform is a subject that has been in the news in recent days. Part of the discussion has been centered on the content of the current efforts to establish legislation for healthcare reform. While this aspect may not make it into the final legislation that is passed it is a topic which seems to be one at the center of healthcare costs. Tort reform is something that is desperately needed and should be considered for action. This action can be at the federal level or it can be through individual state legislatures. To start the discussion it is important to explain what tort reform represents. According to Wikipedia.org tort is a system for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another’s person, property or other protected interests (e.g. reputation, under libel and slander). The focus of this article will be the positive and negative aspects of tort reform as addressed through various scenarios and issues.
To begin I agree that any individual or business that has valid justification for filing a lawsuit for damages or injuries has the right to seek restitution from those responsible. Tort reform has been a hot topic and though it may not be unanimously accepted by all citizens some sort of tort reform is justified. I am also not discounting the responsibility businesses or individuals have with regards to inflicting harm to others, their businesses or their property. It is important to remember the cost of damages awarded through lawsuits is reflected in the prices for products and services. Businesses are in business to make a profit and when their costs go up they must
raise their prices and typically their business insurance goes up as well.
One of the positive aspects of tort reform would be the potential in the reduction of lawsuits. The present case load of our court system both the federal and state courts is heavy and sometimes it may be months and in some cases years before a case is scheduled on the court calendar. With regards to the potential for a reduction in lawsuits the statement above is based on the following scenario. If there is a limit on the amount of damages that can be awarded based on the facts and circumstances involved the incentive for some individuals to file a lawsuit would be diminished. There are those individuals and we all know they exist that file lawsuits hoping to make a killing in the amount of monetary award given for their situation. I am not saying that everyone who files a lawsuit fits this situation but it does exist. This can be seen by the circumstances that have been reported for some cases.
Another area of tort reform involves the action of lawyers. While tort reform is not something that is considered to involve lawyers it does. Lawyers are involved in efforts for tort reform since the costs of their services in lawsuits adds to the cost of damages awarded. I have high respect for the profession of lawyers but there have been cases where I do not respect some individual actions of lawyers. This is based upon the actions they take concerning cases we see in the news every day. If limitations or other changes are made to the present tort system it would affect the profession of lawyers.
Some suggestions have been made for changes in the tort system where if those filing lawsuits lose their case that they must pay the court costs. In this scenario those filing lawsuits would think twice with regards to filing a lawsuit if they think there is a possibility of losing their case. One negative aspect of tort reform in the statements and examples made in the preceding paragraph is that valid lawsuits may be affected by the changes noted above. Sometimes those causing harm play on the statistics that most will not take the time or trouble to file a lawsuit for their circumstances. This is an aspect of tort reform which should be addressed. No individual or business should be able to get away with causing harm to individuals, businesses or property. Any actions to reform the tort system must address this issue or I feel the system would break down and the victims would be the losers.
The present system in most places does not have limitations on the amount of awards that can be given to victims though there are some areas that have placed limitations. Limitations are great if they are properly established in connection with the harm that has taken place. Tort reform has another aspect regarding harm to victims. There are cases where there is contributing negligence on the part of victims. There is always the possibility that victims sometimes are partly responsible for their injuries but it should not absolve other parties to pay restitution for their part.
In closing this article it is important to note that the amount of awards granted through the courts contributes to the cost of business and the cost of our healthcare. Discussion of tort reform in connection with the healthcare reform legislation being created does not appear to be an aspect that will be included. Lawsuits against doctors and hospitals increase the cost of our healthcare and as awards are granted the cost of the services being provided rise. While everyone should be responsible for their actions there needs to be some limitations on the amount of awards granted through the courts. The large amount of awards granted in many lawsuits appear to have no correlation to the amount of damage inflicted on victims personally or their business or property. There needs to be some measure established either at the federal or state level. While states also have statute limitations for filing lawsuits I feel the federal government should lay some ground rules involving damages awarded in lawsuits.
The previous paragraph talks about more involvement in tort reform by the federal government. While I feel that the federal government for the most part should leave issues to the states as identified in the Constitution there are issues requiring federal government involvement. Tort reform is one of these issues. There are currently a large number of court cases on federal court calendars involving issues associated with the need for tort reform. There needs to be consistency in how cases are handled and the amount of awards granted from court to court. Whether we agree with the outcomes of awards in lawsuits consistency is something that is needed not only in federal courts but state courts.
Consistency is always a good thing if it is based on sound judgment. Granted some cases involve issues that are not routine and the physical and emotional impact to victims cannot always be put into an amount that should be awarded. There does need to be some connection between the details of a lawsuit and amount of the award granted by courts. The more serious the harm, the more those responsible should pay. Some examples have been identified in news stories where the amount awarded seems to have no correlation to the harm inflicted on victims.
The subject of tort reform and the various rules and regulations in each state calls for some consistency in awards being made in lawsuits. The last point to make is that any tort reform that is put in place must be fair both to the victims and those responsible. Victims deserve to receive restitution for the harm imposed upon them. The amount awarded must have a correlation to the level of seriousness for the harm inflicted. Let us tell both our state legislatures and Congress that we want tort reform now.
The present system is out of control in my opinion with no consistency in the amount of awards granted from state to state and no correlation between the award and the harm inflicted on victims. Consistency needs to be put in place in the present tort system focusing on the victims with appropriate awards based on the harm incurred. In this respect there needs to be some limitations which are consistent across all states. Placing limitations of the amounts of awards granted would not be out of line with other limitations in other courts throughout the country. An example of this involves the small claims courts. Small claims courts have limitations on the amount of money that can be awarded in a case. Tort reform must address both the victims and their right for restitution and making sure that those responsible for any harm inflicted pay for their actions. Those responsible for any harm to victims should not be allowed to shirk their responsibilities for their actions. We as individuals are responsible for our actions and the consequences of them.
Contributor's website: http://www.myqualitywriting.com/
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
One Response to “The Positive and Negatives for Tort Reform”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
Of course, there are arguments for and against tort reform. It is clear to fair-minded folks that the arguments in favor of real tort reform are overpowering. Those who defend the current system are enriched by it and can’t separate their own interest from the public interest. See the current posting at http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com for some facts and candor.