With the selection of John Edwards, a trial lawyer who has made millions filing person injury and medical malpractice lawsuits as Kerry's running mate, will Tort Reform now enter the arena of national debate? Personally, I think it should and I think the Republican Party needs to introduce it as an issue - not just to beat Kerry/Edwards, but it's an important issue I think.

Here is a list of some of the more bizarre lawsuits that have been filed and I'm sure we have all heard of others.

From the National Association of Health Underwriters (those "evil" insurance companies), we get the following....



This practice of "defensive medicine" I have seen for myself and I know it does indeed raise the cost of healthcare in this country. In 2003, Republicans in the Senate introduced S.11, "The Patients First Act" which was defeated on a procedural vote, but similar legislation should be introduced again this year. In my mind, now would be a really good time......

So, the questions for debate are.....

1. Should Tort reform be an issue in the Presidential Campaign? Why or why not?

2. Does the fact that John Edwards is a trial lawyer who has made millions by filing lawsuits help or hurt him?

1. Should Tort reform be an issue in the Presidential Campaign? Why or why not?

I would agree that tort reform is definitely something we should take a serious look at, but I don't think this is something that is an important enough national issue to debate during a presidential election. Taken side by side against things like Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, the Economy, etc tort reform just doesn't measure up in my eyes.

Also, politicians would have an incredibly hard time (I think) explaining what a tort is in the first place. I first learned about them back in a business law class in college, there was a significant portion of the class devoted to them, and I still don't think I have nearly as deep of an understanding of them as some of the lawyers here on AD. Trying to explain them to Joe Average and not only have him understand them, but understand why it is important to change them seems like a very challenging task.

2. Does the fact that John Edwards is a trial lawyer who has made millions by filing lawsuits help or hurt him?
I would say that the fact that Edwards is a trial lawyer makes him vastly more qualified to speak intelligently about the issue than Bush or Cheny. He has studied them for years and used them in his professional life.

Just because Edwards chose personal injury and medical malpractice for his career doesn't necessarily mean he would be against tort reform, just the same as a defense attorney is not necessarily trying to make sure the bad guys walk free. You can't blame him for wanting a lucrative career -- I wouldn't go through law school and put myself in incredible debt only to go take up pro bono cases.

If this were to become an issue in the election, Edwards would be the most competent and credible person to debate the merits of torts so it would help him out.

1. Should Tort reform be an issue in the Presidential Campaign? Why or why not?

Sort of would be my answer because both sides like to sway the issue to their benefit while distorting the other part of the facts. Yes some lawsuits should not be made based on their merits and when the merits are not their are usually thrown out of court. But you need to look also at where the malpractice insurance as well as our insurance companies put their money to really see the full story along with unmerited lawsuits. One of the most wasteful parts doctors and hospitals see is the paperwork that has to be filed by all the different companies as well as following the rules of all the different companies in order to get paid. Where there needs to be more of a set standard to comply with all the companies.

2. Does the fact that John Edwards is a trial lawyer who has made millions by filing lawsuits help or hurt him?

Please show me of any case of John Edwards cases that were not filed and won on the merit, so no it should not effect him at all, cause did it hurt Cheney that he once worked for the same company that is now getting no bid contracts I don't think so.

Just a point of information, I checked on THOMAS for what the vote on S.11 was and it was pretty much along partisan lines. (surprise, surprise) Edwards voted against it, and Kerry didn't vote on it at all. The vote number was 264 in case anyone's interested.

I skimmed that bill, and without reading through it in excruciating detail it came off to me as mostly a "gimme" for insurance companies disguised as a way to reduce health care costs. It is no surprise it was a partisan vote given that conclusion.

I know plenty of doctors and all of them have opinions on what is wrong with the medical industry. Very few of them cite medical malpractice insurance premiums as the number 1 issue.

But, touche for proving Edwards voted against something that on the surface appears to combat malpractice. /bows

Actually, you don't make much filing those types of lawsuits... the big bucks (about $26 million in four years, I think I saw today) is in winning those lawsuits, which means you (as a trial lawyer) got a jury or judge to agree that the suit not only had merit, but that the plaintiff -- the side represented by Edwards -- was correct and the defendents were not. Seems like a worthwhile job to me, getting paid to ensure the law works for everyone.

As to the questions:

No, tort reform isn't really much of a national campaign issue, just because it's something that first needs to happen at the state level and not the federal level. That's where the goofiest lawsuits -- and strangest verdicts -- happen anyway. And state tort reform is a better topic for your local representative and not the president or vice-president.

No, it doesn't hurt Edwards to have made his money this way. Do you, Aquilla, feel that it hurts Dick Cheney to have made his fortune at Haliburton and through government service?

Not real sure you really want to use this line of reasoning. Some lawyer got a jury to believe that a woman needed over a million dollars because she put a hot cup of coffee between her legs and got burned(not sure why McDonalds was responsible for where she put the coffee). A jury found OJ Simpson "not quilty"(and a lot of people don't think that jury was right either). If one is a smooth talker, regardless of political party, it's not that hard to do.

Just for the record, the jury found McD's negligent because they served their coffee at much higher temperatures (to cover the taste) than anywhere else, temperatures that gave the woman third degree burns, temperatures that they were proved to have known were dangerous.
Spilling coffee on yourself shouldn't result in third degree burns.
The award was reduced to a much more reasonable sum in the end.

1. Should Tort reform be an issue in the Presidential Campaign? Why or why not?

It should be, but it is a hard one to understand. One of the problems of lawsuits is that lawyers now regularly advertise on TV "Have you been injured..." "Even if you don't think your doctor did anything wrong, you may still be entitled to compensation..."

Lawsuits costs consumers billions of dollars each year. It costs companies nothing. It is similar to the "raise taxes on evil corporations" line of thinking...the results are not in line with the intentions. Corporations don't pay fines, their consumers do. Corporations don't pay taxes, the people that buy their products do.

Edwards And The Problem With The Trial-Lawyer Lobby





2. Does the fact that John Edwards is a trial lawyer who has made millions by filing lawsuits help or hurt him?
I don't think it will have an impact, unless the Bush campaign really hammers it home (which would be a personal attack, of course).

Would a Kerry-Edwards administration be likely to do anything about tort reform? The trial lawyer lobby is now the largest contributor to the Democrat party.Trial Lawyers, Inc. floods the political process with cash

The worst part about these types of lawsuits is that they make doctors flee less lucrative (mostly Southern) states in which the doctor cannot charge enough to pay for malpractice insurance. Hospitals Brace For Surgeons' Walkout

As for the election, it won't make a difference. The issue is arcane to most Americans and so will not affect the election at all.

Should Tort reform be an issue in the Presidential Campaign? Why or why not?

No, it should not be. As Amf commented, problematic tort lawsuits happen at the State level, in the State Courts. This is where the issue needs to be addressed and if need be, adjustments made to State laws regarding tort lawsuit reform. Tort reform at the federal level has become a highly politicized issue, polarized and beset by large and powerful lobby groups in Washington with their own agenda on both sides. It is the worst place to resolve the issue. Why would anyone want this to be part of the 2004 Presidential Campaigns?

With regard to "outrageous" tort lawsuits themselves, consider that public perception is somewhat jaded by the nature of news reports and public interest. Many, many tort lawsuits take place in courts across the country and for the most part, the lionshare are routine, ordinary, and not interesting enough to attract the attention of the media unless the participants are high-profile. The number of lawsuits with highly unusual situations and outcomes - the ones that seem to be shocking, like the afforementioned McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit - which attract the press and gain widespread attention are the minority. To make things worse, objective writing and including all the facts or following up later with any information on appeals typically degrades the "shock" impact of the story, and makes it less "newsworthy," which results in conflicted interest in the reporting and re-telling of stories.

According to the Wall Street Journal at the time of the McDonalds case in 1994, the jury which considered the issue was primarily concerned with the callousness and indifference on the part of McDonald's Corporation regarding the facts of the case. The following are some of the less well known points in the issue:

1. McDonald's routinely kept its coffee hotter than other restaurants by at least 20 degrees or more, and had legally settled more than 700 incidents of scalding in the decade prior to the 1994 incident, but never consulted any burn experts, or made any changes to their operating procedures. McDonalds was consistently keeping its coffee at 185 degrees, a temperature at which third degree burns occur in just two to seven seconds, often requiring skin grafting, debridement, and whirlpool treatments which are painful and can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

2. The 81-year old retiree in question suffered third degree burns on her groin and thighs which required surgical skin grafts and a 7-day hospital stay. She did not want to sue McDonald's, but in her case, McDonald's refused to pay for her hospital bills.

3. During the trial, a company quality assurance manager testified that McDonalds was aware of the risks but did not intend to turn down the heat or to post warnings about the possibility of severe burns. When it came to the verdict, the jury found McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million. Punitive awards in such cases are designed to punish a reckless defendant and prompt changes in business practices. McDonalds generated revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars per day from the sale of coffee alone, vending approximately 1 billion cups of coffee each year, so the punitive damages amounted to approximately two days worth of coffee sale profits.

4. On appeal, the damages were reduced to $480,000, which was not widely reported in the media or attract much attention from the press.

Whenever you read a story about an outrageous lawsuit with a seemingly bizarre result, remember that you are often reading a filtered account of the story which may not include all the facts or worse yet is designed to present only one side of the story. Also, be sure to distinguish between a case where a Plaintiff has filed an "outrageous" suit (but it has not yet been tossed out or tried on the merits), and a case where a Plaintiff has actually won a sizable award. Many frivolous lawsuits get filed, but the system weeds them out.