Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Who's Responsible (tort reform in America)

damnrad · Feb 25, 2004, 06:02 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
We've all heard the stories about the old woman that spilled coffee on herself getting millions from McDonalds, or the scams where people intentionally "slip" so they can sue some establishment or another in the hopes that they will be rewarded with a new and monied life.

Many politicians have raised tort reform as a campain issue but the unbelievable stories of abuse of the legal system never seem to go away.

Here where I live (Washington State, USA) there is a bill being introduced into the legislature, on behalf of local doctors, to limit the cost of medical malpractice insurance fees (and the insurance companies in turn want to limit rewards for medical malpractice to $250,000).

"Consumer advocacy" groups (usually left wing organizations) oppose tort reform on the grounds that it gives corporations licence to abuse their customers.

Personally I was just engaged in an interesting conversation with a friend's parents where they described to me a situation where their rich neighbors sued them because they (the rich neighbors) were adverse to my friend's parents (working class people) new ownership of the waterfront property directly in front of their's. My friends parents won the lawsuit in the end, but it cost them thousands. This can't be just.

What's your view on who should be able to sue and why, and where do you draw the line?

I hate it when people use the courts as a get rich quick scheme and I also hate it when big corporations blatanty forgo public safety and security precautions to make a quick buck.

I'm just trying to find out what the best place for the legal system is and what "happy medium" should be the position of a logical and analytical person.

Your input will be welcome. For me this country's "justice" system seems like a rigged game where there is "truth and justice for all those that can afford it".

More importantly: are there any good ideas out there for a system that really would be a fair and judicious use of the power of government?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

One traditional answer to those who have wished to regulate the actions of those with power over others is that the latter can always be sued. The litigation system is supposed to be the answer for those who are victimized and realize that 'there oughta be a law.' Like any other system, the tort system is sometimes abused -- to a great extent by the wealthy, because they are the ones who can afford expensive litigation. But true, by taking big cuts out of what is recovered, lawyers make themselves available to those who are less able to pay for litigation up front. Most calls for tort reform target suits that are likely to be brought by those with less power and less money -- and the calls generally cite 'obscene' payments to the lawyers whose services are bought by big cuts of the successful outcomes. So, yes, there is a problem; but the 'tort reform' solution is generally aimed at taking away recourse for those with less money and/or less power. It's an old story: provide an inadequate remedy, then complain about its abuse.

I say that if there is to be tort reform, then we need much more regulation, much more monitoring, and criminal charges when the wealthy and powerful abuse the poor and/or powerless.

Feb 25, 2004, 06:02 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,) We've all heard the stories about the old woman that spilled coffee on herself getting millions from McDonalds, or the scams where people intentionally "slip" so they can sue some establishment or another in the hopes that they will be rewarded with a new and monied life. Many politicians have raised tort reform as a campain issue but the unbelievable stories of abuse of the legal system never seem to go away. Here where I live (Washington State, USA) there is a bill being introduced into the legislature, on behalf of local doctors, to limit the cost of medical malpractice insurance fees (and the insurance companies in turn want to limit rewards for medical malpractice to $250,000). "Consumer advocacy" groups (usually left wing organizations) oppose tort reform on the grounds that it gives corporations licence to abuse their customers. Personally I was just engaged in an interesting conversation with a friend's parents where they described to me a situation where their rich neighbors sued them because they (the rich neighbors) were adverse to my friend's parents (working class people) new ownership of the waterfront property directly in front of their's. My friends parents won the lawsuit in the end, but it cost them thousands. This can't be just. What's your view on who should be able to sue and why, and where do you draw the line? I hate it when people use the courts as a get rich quick scheme and I also hate it when big corporations blatanty forgo public safety and security precautions to make a quick buck. I'm just trying to find out what the best place for the legal system is and what "happy medium" should be the position of a logical and analytical person. Your input will be welcome. For me this country's "justice" system seems like a rigged game where there is "truth and justice for all those that can afford it". More importantly: are there any good ideas out there for a system that really would be a fair and judicious use of the power of government?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> One traditional answer to those who have wished to regulate the actions of those with power over others is that the latter can always be sued. The litigation system is supposed to be the answer for those who are victimized and realize that 'there oughta be a law.' Like any other system, the tort system is sometimes abused -- to a great extent by the wealthy, because they are the ones who can afford expensive litigation. But true, by taking big cuts out of what is recovered, lawyers make themselves available to those who are less able to pay for litigation up front. Most calls for tort reform target suits that are likely to be brought by those with less power and less money -- and the calls generally cite 'obscene' payments to the lawyers whose services are bought by big cuts of the successful outcomes. So, yes, there is a problem; but the 'tort reform' solution is generally aimed at taking away recourse for those with less money and/or less power. It's an old story: provide an inadequate remedy, then complain about its abuse. I say that if there is to be tort reform, then we need much more regulation, much more monitoring, and criminal charges when the wealthy and powerful abuse the poor and/or powerless.