How can the tort system be changed so that we don't have such a huge number of lawsuits and ridiculous damage claims?

Here's a few ways:
1) Empower juries to make defendants "whole" if they deem them to be victims of meritless lawsuits.
2) Allow defendants to insist on mediation before going to trial.
3) Disallow, whenever possible, junk lawsuits, including:
-Lawsuits from people injured while they were intoxicated;
-Lawsuits from people injured while they were committing a crime; and,
-Unreasonable lawsuits from prisoners claiming a "deprivation" of their rights.
4) Develop reasonable standards for awarding punitive damages.
5) Enact pure, no-fault auto insurance without thresholds.

These solutions are from Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

I agree with DTOM. Litigation in this country has reached a level where it has become a big joke. Take for instance the doctors who are going on strike because of high malpractice insurance. Don't get me wrong, if a doctor is guilty of malpractice he deserves to be punished, but in most cases, the "victim" does not need nor deserve to be made a millionaire 20 times over. All that does is hurt the rest of us who have to foot the bill in higher prices due to these awards. And the tobacco lawsuits? How does giving one person hundreds of millions of dollars help the "public?" Most of the money from the large nationwide settlement only goes to the state governments, and not to the public, and most states have already spent the money on unrelated things. Corporations need to be held accountable for any wrong doing, but so do the lawyers who take up these asinine cases, as well as the judges who hear them. The people suing McDonald's because they are fat, a guy suing a casino because he lost his life savings? These cases are laughable and should be treated in kind, but they are often taken seriously. And I think there should be greater standards on people that can be on a jury. Or at least some kind of training, to prevent purely emotional decisions. (which is what lawyers hope for.) There are thousands upon thousands of "injury lawyers" advertised who say, "turn your wreck into a check." What does that tell you? People who argue that Tort reform is curtailing consumer protection are wrong, because in fact, the system in its current state is what is merely benefiting a few (namely the lawyers) and making things more expensive for the general public.

But corporations and individuals do not deserve immunity from damages they cause. Tort reform could provide some perks to allow bad people to get away with bad things.

Lawsuits, although they provide a large chunk of money for lawyers who were not injured, are one of the last tools that the little guy has use to get justice from corporations. And when this system works well it uses market forces to limit corporate misdeeds. (If we do this it will cost us $X in damages and we will not make that much money in revenues.)

However, I would like to see more judges toss out ridiculous suits and fine the parties that bring them for damages and court costs.

I also would like to see more corporations abopt the policy of fighting when they think they are in the right. Too often they see the value of settling for $10k when they see the defense will cost $50k. In long term economics I think this logic is a loser because lawyers will see easy money in flimsy cases.

I am new to this forum/chat room, so please bear with me. I am very concerned about the rapid escalation of medical costs, and the exodus of qualified physicians from states like Alabama and Virginia because they cannot pay for ( and sometimes not even obtain) medical liability insurance.
If anyone doubts that medical liability insurance costs have gone up more rapidly in states without caps on 'pain and suffering' awards (non-economic awards) please know that in Oregon alone, where I live, the average physician, even in rural areas where his/her income is quite small, must pay in excess of $100,000/year for liability insurance. Also, approximately 2/3 of "pain and suffering" awards, often in the $millions, go to the lawyers, and not to the victims at all. This current cost is approximately double the amount of a few years ago when our state did have caps on judicial pain and suffering awards. This wise law was declared unconstitutional by our now Democratic governor, Kulongoski, when he was on the Bench. I guess the trial lawyers contributed a lot to his election campaign.
Medical insurance costs have gone up by a factor of 500 times in 20 years. All other costs have also gone up, but only by a factor of 167 times. Of course, these increased costs are passed on to the patient, and to the patient's medical insurance carrier.
I am not a physician, and am in no way connected with the medical profession. I am only a consumer of medical services. Comments?

Welcome to AD, fruli... Always happy to see new "faces"!

The problem that I have with 'caps' on damages is who will be setting them. How do you determine what amount someone's suffering is worth across the board, without examining each individual situation? Someone in the Legislative or Executive branch doesn't examine each situtation on an individual basis. When a case comes to trial, the jury and/or Judge looks at the merits of it, and they determine what the cap should be. In my opinion, it seems to be the only fair way of doing it. How much, would you say, is the use of each of your limbs worth? Your eyes? That is what "caps" are designed to determine.

Sometimes in addition to the financial side, you need to take into consideration the "human factor". Many people who file mal-practice complaints against doctors have a legitimate cause to do so. (Perhaps, instead, we should be looking at revoking the certifications of doctors who are found guilty of mal-practice, repetitively.) I'm sure frivolous lawsuits will come up as a reasoning for setting caps. That would be easy to do, because it is a major problem. At the same time, though, you'd be punishing those who have really suffered resulting from neglect, or a direct wrong-doing. Just something to ponder.

Tort reform simply must happen.

I am a small business man. We paid over 400,000 for employee health insurance last year. That is 220,000 more than 5 years ago. We must stop the madness.


Reform what the Attorneys are allowed to take. Pass state laws that say the Attorneys are only allowed .1% of any award in medical mal practice suits watch how fast the dockets clear... Couple this with a mandatory jury trial and you may have an answer.


Caps wont work really because what if Jack is currently in College studying to be an actor. A doctor makes a mistake during a simple procedure and the left side of Jacks face is paralyzed. Now Jack COULD have gone on to be another Tom Hanks...or Jack could have been another no name never made it actor that plays in dinner theaters in St Pete. So how do we compensate Jack? He could have had millions and been the envy of the world....or he could have had to borrow money on his next gig to pay rent this month.

It is not Jacks fault he has suffered this fate. It is not always the Doctors fault either. Even if it is no human is perfect.

Mistakes happen and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

The few need for Jack to get a huge reward that will set him and his lawyers up for life. The many need for Jack to get a fair amount of income that he may live a decent life for the ret of his days. This money should be paid in an annual salary style i.e. X amount of dollars placed in escrow with a fixed interest rate.


Now here comes the kicker...from a right wing republican conservative...ready? drum roll........The Escro accounts should be managed and maintained by the federal government. Did he actually say that? Yes he did...

Ok so anyway if this plan interests you or you see holes why it wont work lets hash it out. I do have the ear of a senator or two. Who knows maybe we can actually get an idea to congress.....Can ya see it now? The "Americas debate dot com bill"...hehe


GBYA

Aahz

I actually agree with you on the point that attorneys are allowed to take far too much of an award when they win one of these cases. I have no problem whatsoever with capping the amount that a lawyer can be paid for a case. The lawyers have not suffered any damages, so I could definitely envision a regulation that states they can only be reimbursed for expenses and collect a "reasonable fee" for their services.

I don't know about setting up a government operated annuity or escrow for awards, though. Being a Democrat, here, that probably surprises you... But I feel that the individual that has suffered the damages should be allowed to control their own money. Just my opinion.

Great post, though, Ahs... Who knows? Maybe the debate here can help to shape policy. You never can tell who's reading this, after all.

Well yeah I can see the person who has suffered wanting to control his money. Problem is too many folks dont know how to handle money of that magnitude.

Consider that a man that makes an average of lets say 75,000 a year for a 45 year working career. Will earn 3.375 million dollars in his career. Now what would Jack do with 3.375 millon dollars bro?
With the tax laws the Dems have in place (lil elbow jab there) about 60% of his award will go to taxes if he takes it in one lump sum. Now he only has 1.35 million. Now Steve what do you reckon the odds are of the average Joe being able to live out another 60+ years on just 1.35 million dollars?


Sure it used to be true that you could put a million bucks in the bank and live off the interest. That isnt true anymore though. 1.35 million at todays interest rates for such deposits (point over prime) only pays around 35k a year.

Whereas if you gave him 75,000 per year over a 60 year period he could pay taxes and have a very decent life. The fixed interest rate was a misnomer I should add...I should have said attached interest rate. Attached to infalation i.e interst is .25% over the inflation rate compounded annually..


GBYA

Aahz

errr... I still have a problem with government deciding for me that I "don't know how to handle my money". I can agree that something like this, (perhaps privately administrated) makes for a great option for people... ie... If someone puts their settlement in an annuity account of some kind, it will only be taxed as it is removed from said account. THAT, I could agree to. Mandatory participation, I think, takes too much power out of the hands of the individual in question, though. Most people coming into a settlement like this are prompted by their lawyers to seek financial advice, anyway. If it were an option for someone to do this, then that's fine. But there are other avenues that can be taken, and we shouldn't close those off for people.

Edited to add: PS... My name isn't Steve, it is Stefan. Thanks.

errr... I still have a problem with government deciding for me that I "don't know how to handle my money".

Hmmm you sure you aint a republican?...hehe

Seems that is what we been preaching for years now...let us handle our own money..

Misread the name bro...Stefan indeed it is...you know how it is man, Old hippy gone Conservative, just like Churchill predicted, eyes arent what they used to be my bad..

GBYA

Aahz

The medical industry has combined to cost far too much. I would choose to not start at the issue of tort reform if it is going to be called medical reform. We need to have doctors that can afford to practice medicine. We need to be assured that individuals who are injured by malpractice get compensated fairly.

I like the idea of capping the maximum amount lawyers can recoup. Or at least the idea of a sliding scale. 33% of the first mill less in the next increment and so on.

But the average guy needs to have access to good lawyers. And I am loathe to see the slide rule equation from Fight Club to go into place. "If we put in defective organs to 200 people our profits we be greater than our probable liability . . ."

I was most surprised by the comment that we should guarantee a jury trial. It has been my understanding that juries make some of the outlandish awards. Greene County, Alabama was famous for it when I lived near there. If juries are given the responsibility of making awards then the system has gone awry. Some type of standards should be set on the type of awards and juries should choose what category of loss, pain, or suffering etc. has been afflicted on the awardee, not the $$$ amount.

It is true Juries are notorious for large PUNITIVE damage awards. However the biggest reason for this is the effectiveness of the attorneys. The plaintiffs attorneys shoots for the moon because he gets the big cut while the defense attorney is on a retainer so he does the best he can but if he was all that he would be a plaintiff attorney yeah?..
So take away the huge reward now the insurance company can afford to hire the same talent the plaintiff can and viola you have at least a semblance of justice..
Well at least in theory..LOL

OJ didn't get off because he was innocent he got off because he had a high dollar attorney...or several of them actually..


GBYA

Aahz

That is the first time I have heard anyone claim that a large corporation can't afford the same quality legal service as the little guy. If juries are so gullible why are you for them?

ADMIN NOTE: I have merged the posts from another thread started by fruli with this one since they are nearly the same.

Everything you read from fruli's post forward were from the recent, duplicate topic.

Jaime

I know it kind hits ya backwards huh Eyore.

Look at it like this. The big corporate attorney gets a salary to wait around for a law suit basically... The private Tort attorney is playing for a huge pay off. Who will be able to put more into their argument? The company has laws it has to abide by that do not apply to the private citizen. So to make the playing field more even I say lets limit attorney take. Then the jury will get a more even view of the case. An Insurance company or Doctor has an image to protect as well while the citizen doesnt really. A jury can be swayed but a Judge can be bought. That kind of power in one mans hands is too much. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know its an old cliche' but it works here..


Anyway I think we can agree on one thing. One way to attack the problem is to cap the attorneys take. Capping the overall award needs a case by case analysis.

Agreed?

The jury thing comes down to trusting humans to be fair and just. The best way for them to be so is education...but it requires objective education and as we can probably also agree there hasnt been any of that in the USA since the 50's..


GBYA

Aahz

We can agree on caps to lawyers but count me out of .1%.
I agree aducation neds to be attended to but I don't agree there has been no fair chance at education since the 1950s. Brown v. Board was a good decision.
Juries still lack the expertise to award $$ amounts.

But there is some agreement here.

Hey hey a step in the right direction then...

Shoot we keep this up we could solve all the worlds ills in oh say another 20 or 30 years..

I used to have a much better argument for Jury trials then OJ happened.....kinda took the wind out of my sails.

I think I will open a thread on Education.


GBYA

Aahz

This is my opinion on everyone's comments who mentioed the following concerns about tort reform:
a) concern that tort reform 'caps' will be placed by government or law rather than juries. Who else should determine these legal limits except the legislature, the lawmaking body? - the 'caps' should only cover pain and suffering (read non economic) awards, not economic awards - the right to sue a bad doctor and recover economic damages is quantifiable and calculable.. Only the non-economic damages should be capped. This means that a cap of say $500,000 will still be available as a lump sum payment for pain and suffering, on top of economic damages, and the uncertainty for insurance companies will be removed.
One member suggested that pain and suffering awards were intended to provide a decent living for someone irrevocably damaged by a careless surgeon - that 'potential' earnings should be included in such awards. I disagree. This is like saying that every person has the potential to be President of the USA and shoud be compensated for this potential. How about potentially becoming Bill Gates? Now that would be an award! But, of course, not everyone will become as wealthy as Bill Gates, or Tom Cruise, or Geoge W Bush or even Meryl Streep. Some economic guarantee should be included in any jury award, but not a 'jackpot'!
C) there were further suggestion that frivolous lawsuits could be somehow controlled by denying cases when one is intoxicated, or under the influence of drugs, or a criminal. Proving these scenarios tie up the Courts and cost hundreds of thousands long before any award is even contemplated. If awards were capped, a lot of these cases would never even come to trial!
d) my final point - I agree that lawyers should only be allowed a small percentage of any award, say 10%. This would take away their profit motive and discourage lawyers from pursuing malpractice cases for large settlement amounts, since they would on ly be getting a relatively small payment. If caps are imposed, the lawyers' 'take' would be reasonable, and the victim would probably get more than he/she gets under current law!

This 10% plan would discourage lawyers from taking anything but the large potential settlement cases. And victims with smaller claims would have to go out and hire someone and be left to the jackals as to whether they really had a case or not.

In answer to your question about how to curtail large unfair awards there is a political movement afoot to establish a "health Court", for example, to curb excessive damage awards in medical malpractice cases. The people on this Court would include medical professionals, so that some objective decision could be made as to whether malpractice occurred or not., and if so, what the awards should fairly be This court would be adjudicated by an experienced judge. The idea is similar to the special courts which already exist, e.g., Family Court.
The idea has been floated by ex speaker Newt Gingrich, a man I happen to admire enormously. I think that he is intelligent, and articulate, and argues well. Also, he is a historian, not a lawyer!

I think it would be useful in such cases to require the plaintiff to lodge some kind of deposit towards their legal fees, returnable only in the event of a successful prosecution, as well as limits on the proportion of any award that are retained by the lawyers.

The latter has been well discussed here, but nobody has mentioned the former. Does nobody think that at least part of the reason for so many 'frivolous' or 'mischevious' prosecutions is that plaintiffs have nothing to lose by launching them?

To avoid deterring the poor, perhaps the deposits could be based on a proportion of income, or could be funded by interest-free loans that would only be pursued after a case has closed, and perhaps funded by the ABA. ;-)

The lawyers are all on no-win, no-fee contracts, so they have nothing to lose, and the plaintiffs have nothing to lose either, except perhaps a little dignity if their cases fails. Modest but significant deposits against losing would deter many cases altogether, but those that are genuine should not be affected, as both plaintiff and lawyer would be more confident that they might win their case.

To make it fair, pehaps defendants should be required to lodge similar deposits, which they too should get as interest-free loans, this time from their insurers.

Any use?

Just as an FYI - in Georgia, if a Plaintiff brings a frivoulous lawsuit then a judge can order them to pay for ALL the attorneys fees and court costs of both sides.

I'm absolutely for sensible tort reform for all the reasons discussed here already. One such sensible reform would be making that Georgia law universal. Making anything like happen will be a political struggle though, and likely a partisan one, because of the enormous sums contributed to the Democratic Party by the American Trial Lawyers Association, who like tort law exactly the way it is so their members can continue to enrich themselves ad nauseum. Never mind that doctors are literally being driven out of the medical profession by the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance...

Izdaara,

How much does the DNC get from the ATLA? "An enormous sum" is a bit vague. To me, these days, an enormous sum is a hundred bucks.

I don't know the dollar amount, but I do know they're one of the DNC's major contributors. I'll look it up or somebody will, but they're right up there with the NEA and government employee unions as Dem core constituencies. That define major well enough?

This is the kind of thing the AMA loves to put out there - oh, those poor doctors. It's a bunch of hooey. Docs in private practice are making good money, and docs who work for hospitals or groups or the government are getting their malpractice paid for. I am constantly surrounded by people in the medical profession, and yet I have not even heard of a single doc leaving the profession because of malpractice insurance rates.

Sorry, quarkhead, but dismissing physician's concerns about the cost of malpractice insurance so casually is "a bunch of hooey."

http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/200...002/000096.html

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsbur.../27/focus4.html

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issues/scan.htm?Id=1413

I could go on and on and on: got 10 more pages of links to articles like those.

Demo/Repub Contributions


Very cool site for finding out the nitty gritty on who contributes to whom.

-edited because the index doesn't work in the link--you have to choose an industry-

Thanks, AM. This is interesting: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...dus.asp?Ind=K01

Wow Izdaari! I had no idea the contribution numbers were that skewed.

I have always been in favor of tort reform.

Maybe then a whole lot less coffees will be spilled on laps..

Also, take a look at this one

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...p?ID=D000000065

Izdaari,

Yeah, and when I checked some other figures, it is clear that the lawyers of America love the heck out of the DNC! Even more than the oil/gas industry loves the GOP.

And now a Demo is running for prez who made his millions through litigation that would be threatened by tort reform. That stinks to high heaven

Think this season my votes are going to as many third party candidates as I can choose. Libertarians are looking good.

Oh, stop laughing at me

Not me, I won't laugh. *stifles a snicker*

Good ol' John Edwards. He's doin' purty good I heah, boy's raisin' himself a ton o' money.