Tort Reform (attempted) in New York

[tivodan1116]

Ok, I came across this website today after listening to some public radio. It is a crude website for a new group in New York which aims to enact tort reform. While it is unlikely to work (the Bar association in NY is an immensely powerful lobbying force*), I find the topic to be interesting. Since the group is so unprofessional that they do not provide a means of contacting them, I will post and refute their "facts" here. Your comments/insights/arguments are welcomed.

Quote by: NYCJR Website Link DID YOU KNOW... A co-defendant in a tort suit who is held just 1 percent liable for an injury can be forced to pay 100 percent of the damages.

Yes. It's a concept called "joint and severable liability." It's mostly used in products liability cases where the product is a known hazardous commodity. Example: Several brands of asbestos are used in building a house. Later, one of the workers develops mesothelioma. It is impossible to know which of the brands of asbestos caused the harm, but any of the manufacturers can be held liable since their harmful product caused harm. It's a complex legal concept, almost never used in cases against doctors or small businesses (because in those cases it's clear to determine who caused what % of the harm).

There no limit on what juries can award for non-economic losses, such as "pain and suffering?" Even though these concepts are impossible to measure or quantify.

So, keeping in mind that these concepts are impossible to measure, is it more appropriate to assess a blanket value for them regardless of situation, or to allow a jury of decent people to determine what is fair on a case-by-case basis?

Workers injured at construction sites can expect to automatically win tort suits against employers, regardless of their own culpability. .

Strict liability. It's a difficult concept to swallow for most people, but the reasoning is that by having it in place, it creates a great incentive for employers to make their workplaces safe.

A person injured mostly through his own negligence -- including consumption of illegal drugs or excessive amounts of alcohol -- can still collect damages from other parties.

Yes, theoretically, although it rarely happens due to comparative negligence rules. Again, do we want a hard and fast rule for everything, or do we want to allow a jury to make a decision on a case-by-case basis for the unique facts involved?

Retailers can be dragged into lawsuits over product defects of which they had no knowledge and for which they had no actual responsibility.

Anyone can be "dragged into" a lawsuit about anything. This doesn't mean they're held responsible at the end of it. And in some cases, a retailer should be held liable. What if the product is recalled but the retailer, not wanting to lose money, continues selling the product?

Employers can be sued both for providing AND failing to provide honest references about former employees.

The only way they can be sued for providing an honest reference is under slander and defamation. Fortunately, it is an absolute defense to slander and defamation that what the defendant said is true. On the second part, if an employer lies about a reference, they should be liable, because that sucks. This complaint is misleading at best.

A criminal can collect damages for injuries suffered while fleeing the scene of a crime.

Again, in theory, yes. But in fact, almost never happens. Juries and especially judges see through this very quickly.

Manufacturers who invest in research and innovation to make their products safer can be penalized by having these improvements used as evidence that old products weren't

::sigh:: Again, a difficult legal concept is oversimplified by a group of (obviously) laypeople. In any case like this, there are going to be many more factors involved. The new technology MAY be used as evidence against the defendant, but a more important factor will be whatever the custom was at the time of manufacture and whether that custom was "best practice" at that time. It also depends on if the manufacturer could have used the technology at the time, etc etc etc. In short, again, is it better to have these factors set by a legislature (who in NY can't even pass a budget on time) or to have them set by a jury of citizens on a case-by-case basis?

*Note: I am a member of said powerful lobbying force.

[fushigi]

I like their approach all the same. Provide lots of details that seem obviously ridiculous and unfair, while providing absolutely no data. How many cases have been ruled in favor of criminals being injured while fleeing the scene of a crime vs. how many ruled against? On how many occasions last year were employers giving employee information sued as a result, vs. how many references were given without being sued? And what was the specific information given?

[Mr.Vicchio]

While this group is using what can only be called scare tactics, I for one am all for Tort Reform, across the board.

[tivodan1116]

Why? Who does tort reform benefit, and who does it hurt? Look at who, in products liability cases (for example) the plaintiff is likely to be, and look at who the defendant is likely to be. Is it any wonder corporations support tort reform?

Tort reform is nothing more than a euphamism for communist/socialist justice. Right now, New York has a free market justice system - juries decide the award based on compensible damages. Tort reform is price fixing based upon no facts whatsoever.

[Mr.Vicchio]

tivodan, are you a lawyer?

I am for tort reform because jackpot juries lead to baseless lawsuits in hopes of ringing up the big $$$. You act as if it's all right to sue an entity, be it a person or a corperation just because they have $$$. That's just it, it's all about $$$ not justice or what's right or wrong.

Medical costs are huge in part, because of how much a doc must spend to carry malpractice insurance. Look at OB-GYN docs, they get sued more then any other doctor why? Because lawyers have found it's easy to sway a jury with emotion. former VP Canidate Edwards made MILLIONS sueing doctors that didn't perform C-Section births and the child came out with Cerable Palsy. Do you Tivodan know what he and other lawyers caused?

They forced hospitals to perform C-Section's at the first sign of any problem. Not only is a C-Section expensive, it's also a very rough procedre on the woman.

But tivodan, guess what? Despite a huge increase in the number of C-Section births (if memory serves it was 1 C-section per 10 births when the CP scare kicked off and the lawsuits started) is like 6 to 1. And the rate of Cerebal Palsay? HASN'T CHANGED. Yet doc's still get sued on the premis if the birth has "only been a c-section" even though it's been disproven.

Tort refrom, it's time to save ourselves from the Greed of Lawyers, and more so to save ourselves from our own greed.

[lsbskins1]

Hey Mr. V.-

I would be all for Tort Reform too, if as a part of the reform package we limited the amout of money a Corporation could spend defending a suit. Or maybe, as part of the reform, we could require arbitration and reliance on independant pools of experts. I mean, it isn't like the Big Companies who are behind this push for reform have created, through the use of vast resources, the absolute necessity for individual comsumers and small firms to spend sums of money normally beyond their means, to rely on huge awards to cover these tremendous expenses, right. That couldn't be the root of the problem, right? Because all companies are run by good, consevative Christians who would never, ever try to spend a plantiff into oblivion or lie about anything, or retain scientists or doctors at high rates of pay that virtually insured they would give, on the stand, the answers most beneficial to their employers. That could never happen, right? It's all because those low brow poor people with no good sense or moral compases just want to cheat the sysytem and take everyone for a ride.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio tivodan, are you a lawyer? Medical costs are huge in part, because of how much a doc must spend to carry malpractice insurance. Look at OB-GYN docs, they get sued more then any other doctor why? Because lawyers have found it's easy to sway a jury with emotion. former VP Canidate Edwards made MILLIONS sueing doctors that didn't perform C-Section births and the child came out with Cerable Palsy. Do you Tivodan know what he and other lawyers caused?

I like this example, it's so easy to set aside. The fact is 5 percent of America's doctors are responsible for 90 percent of malpractice claims. You want to lower the cost of medical insurance? Go after those 5%.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio tivodan, are you a lawyer?

I am a law student.

I am for tort reform because jackpot juries lead to baseless lawsuits in hopes of ringing up the big $$$.

It seems you are unaware of how the legal system works. Juries do not get paid depending on the judgment. Why would juries rule a certain way "in hopes of ringing up the big $$$"?

You act as if it's all right to sue an entity, be it a person or a corperation just because they have $$$. That's just it, it's all about $$$ not justice or what's right or wrong.

I never said that. What I said was when you look at who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in tort lawsuits (and who are the members of this organization foisting tort reform on New York), it is obvious who benefits the most from tort reform and it sure isn't the average citizen.

Medical costs are huge in part, because of how much a doc must spend to carry malpractice insurance. Look at OB-GYN docs, they get sued more then any other doctor why? Because lawyers have found it's easy to sway a jury with emotion. former VP Canidate Edwards made MILLIONS sueing doctors that didn't perform C-Section births and the child came out with Cerable Palsy.

Anecdotal evidence.

Do you Tivodan know what he and other lawyers caused? They forced hospitals to perform C-Section's at the first sign of any problem. Not only is a C-Section expensive, it's also a very rough procedre on the woman.

They FORCED it? Since when do lawyers dictate medical procedures? I know when my son was born there weren't any lawyers in the room.

But you're right... Malpractice insurance is high. So let's all boo-hoo for a few minutes about the doctor who has to pay $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance out of his $300,000 a year salary.

While we're talking salary, the CEO of Traveler's Insurance made over $300 million last year. For one person. Think about that when someone tells you it's lawyers driving up the cost of insurance.

But tivodan, guess what? Despite a huge increase in the number of C-Section births (if memory serves it was 1 C-section per 10 births when the CP scare kicked off and the lawsuits started) is like 6 to 1. And the rate of Cerebal Palsay? HASN'T CHANGED. Yet doc's still get sued on the premis if the birth has "only been a c-section" even though it's been disproven.

Get the statistics on the success of lawsuits in this type of case.

The FACT is that medical malpractice is the only area of the law where custom is still a defense in a lawsuit. This means that if you sue a doctor, the court gives the doctor the benefit of the doubt if what the doctor did was a typical customary response given the situation even if the custom is outdated or dangerous. In all other areas of the law (products liability, for example), custom is an incomplete defense. The defendant must not only prove that the procedure is custom but that the custom is the best possible way of doing it.

Tort refrom, it's time to save ourselves from the Greed of Lawyers, and more so to save ourselves from our own greed.

Once again I ask, who benefits from tort reform? Who is hurt? Remember, there are lawyers on both sides, so you can't say lawyers one way or another.