Who's Responsible (tort reform in America)

[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?

[SVMc]

It's a difficult question if you allow unlimited access to private law suites via tort law then you will attract the above mentioned situations where people use it as a judicial lottery. BTW, can someone tell me in the American system, if you win your case in court does the other party have to pay your legal and court fees? This is the case in Canada, but several Americans have mentioned the court costs are you referring to costs that were incurred in the long judical process but will be recouped or do these costs stay with each party regardless of if they win or lose?

The Canadian system has a large body of law... that maybe a Canadian lawyer can post on more specifically because it is WAY too much research. Simply the Canadian system limits frivilous law suites.

The immediate problem is the term "frivilous". Who decides which claims merit examination and which ones don't. That's largely unclear and highly problematic.

So I think before reform of tort law is attempted take a look at some of the rather large blunders that have been made in trying to limit it over here... mind you suing McDonalds for hot coffee won't work here... but apparently we also spend more money examining the evidence of abuse in residential schools than we do remunierating the victims (outch!).

[Packratt]

My, what a complex question which doesn't really address all the flaws within the entire justice system but just a portion of it, a portion which seeks to protect the wealthy.

Tort reform in regards to medical malpractice is a very interesting issue, the government seeks to cap damages due to insurance costs on behalf of the AMA, an organization of doctors that refuses to police it's own ranks... Yet even the insurance agencies themselves say that tort reform will do nothing to the price of insurance because their rates are based more on profit via investments instead of the actual risk/cost of insuring.

So, one wonders what the real reason for tort reform in this case, or in others really is?

I can speak to you of personal experience of situations before tort reform, of my grandfather who went in for surgery due to a broken hip. They cut open the wrong leg, down to the bone, before they realised their mistake. This left him bedridden for the rest of his life and accelerated his decline. Due to lack of money he was shifted from hospital to hospital until even the veterans hospital refused him, a man who served in war to protect his country, before he died. His wife barely recieved enough to pay the bills and sold their lifelong home just to have enough to survive her remaining days.

Then there is my wife. The doctors said the operation would prevent her condition from returning and it returned. They claimed they didn't leave anything behind and that her constant pain wasn't their fault, but when sent for an MRI they had to stop the procedure because the magnets were tugging on something metalic inside of her, ripping at her from the inside. They calimed one of their interns didn't mistreat her when she was helpless in a hospital bed after the surgery even though she was so frightened that I had to stay with her 24/7 after that day to protect her....

For all of that, there is not one lawyer who would even hear our call for restitution... And we now wait for the day that we can have enough to get her another operation that she needs but is so horribly afraid to get because of the pain the last one caused. We wait for the day we can afford to get her that kind of mistreatment again, or the day when her health fails her again and they have no choice but to take her as a patient.

It's interesting to watch the people who have never been affected by something talk about how that something is flawed. You have no idea in which way it really is flawed.

[Impenitent]

sue your doctors... look at the medical community of west virginia... that is what frivilous law suits gets you... doctors who can't afford to practice medicine

just ask edwards where he made his millions...

[damnrad]

</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.

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
sue your doctors...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>With what money to pay for a lawyer?

[forecg]

IMHO, capping damages is addressing a symptom, not the problems. There are three problems.

First, justice is inconsistant. If the laws were explicit and lawyers always knew what the outcome of a case would be, then the smart ones would settle out of court every time.

Second, losers aren't required to reimburse "reasonable" (court-determined) legal fees for their opponents, so people often stand to benefit from playing the legal-lottery even when they know they're wrong.

Third, lawmakers and courts undermine personal freedom by voiding voluntarily agreed-to private contracts. If the only way I can afford to do something is to agree not to sue a business, then it's an infringement on my freedom of choice when lawmakers and courts void liability waivers and force that business to raise its prices or get sued into bankruptcy.

As long as laws are vague, people-in-the-wrong aren't responsible for the costs of their lawsuits, and private contracts are undermined, the U.S. will continue to be a lawsuit-happy country.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
sue your doctors...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>With what money to pay for a lawyer?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

they are called ambulance chasers for a reason... they take one third to one half of your $2 million dollar suit as their fee after the case is settled

the more they win, the more they get...

[laserkid]

I think the oidea of tort reform is good but it shouldnt put a cut on what the plantiffs can get - just what the LAWYERS can get, and if you lose your case, you have to renburce the person you sued for ALL of their legal charges because YOU hurt them financially.

Why do I say this? Because the rich use this system to bully others.

Want some examples, I have two for you.

Anyone remember BLEEM the PC Playstation Emulator that was on the market a few years back? It went out of buisiness, but not because they were told by the government to stop. Sony's threat of lawsuit was all it took to shut them down, because they flat out didn't have the money to make their case for their prpduct on a legal standpoint.

A second example involves fanfiction.net - a place where you can write fanfiction on NEARLY anything you want. It used to be anything, but starting with author Anne Rice, and several following her, they threatened to sue fanfiction.net a non profit organization if they allowed any more fanfictions and kept the old ones online. They had no legal basis for this, and while I can see both sides of the argument, fnafiction.net has NO money to make any sort of case, so they get bullied around because it costs so god damned much to fight back against the rich.

Thats really the largest problem. If it didnt cost zillions of dollars to defend yourself when sued - it would probably solve the problem then and there. Instead the justice system isnt about justice, its about giving more money to the rich when they sue someone poor, or fucking over the poor when they sue someone rich.

I'm not normally one to attack rich folks as usually they earned their money - but this is one kind of behaviour I see FAR too often that should NOT be allowed to continue. Perhaps the curtrent tort reform preposal is inadequate, but that does not mean some things shouldn't change.