Tort reform anyone?

[Cosmo1999]

The top 5 bogus lawsuits of 2003.Just a glimpse of the garbage wasting valuable court time and taxpayers dollars. Who else here thinks its time to put a cap on this crap? Meaning laws to limit what you can sue for and definately putting a cap on what can be awarded. Hell someone could spill something on themselves in a restaurant, get laughed at and sue for emotional duress because they were too **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** stupid not to knock the desert over.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Hear, hear!!!

What do you think about the following ideas?

-Attorneys are not allowed to collect a percentage of the award after the fact....they are required to be paid hourly and there must be a running total kept so lawyers won't "pad the books" to collect the big check if the action is settled in their favor.

-Class action lawsuits are no more....they serve ONE purpose....to make the attorneys bringing the action and their partners rich....while the people actually affected end up with a check for $13.78 and credit toward future purchase from the company being sued.

-The loser of the lawsuit must pay the winner's lawyer bill. (which, according to reform #1, needs to be tallied BEFORE the case is decided)

-Damages awarded must be quantified in a reasonable manner....puntive damages should be limited to less than $100K and damages for "emotional distress" need to be eliminated.

-If the case involves a person who died or was injured as a result (or a partial result) of his/her own actions, the standard for this action to proceed past summary judgement must be that the actions on the part of a second party should "shock the conscience."

-Once an action is initiated, it should be seen through to conclusion via decision by jury or dismissal by a magistrate or judge.....no "settlement out-of-court" should EVER be allowed. (that'd make you think twice about suing someone, wouldn't it?)

-Criminal actions MUST be separated from civil actions.....the costs of civil actions should be paid for by user fees or a portion of the award.....this would help free up criminal courts and restore public confidence in the criminal court system....

-No one should be allowed to initiate a product liability action if the product in question is more than (insert your own number here, perhaps it needs to vary for different products) years old.

-All appointed judges should be up for re-election every five years.

One of the big priorities for the Bush administration in their second term is tort reform.....it's too hot politically to tackle during a first term.

You can bet your a$$ that Republicans, not Democrats, will be the party to pass tort reform, and this is a big reason for my support of G-Dub.

 

[SteveR]

You can forget about any significant changes to our legal system anytime soon. Too many politicians have their hands in the pocket of some lawyer. The largest single contributor to Democrats is the American Trial Lawyers Association. Don't expect to see any type of reform to our screwed up legal system as long as the dems have a say.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hear, hear.

The Trial Lawyers are, unfortunately, the greatest impediment to freedom from tyranny in America since the King of England.

 

[sqwkvfr]

You can forget about any significant changes to our legal system anytime soon. Too many politicians have their hands in the pocket of some lawyer. The largest single contributor to Democrats is the American Trial Lawyers Association. Don't expect to see any type of reform to our screwed up legal system as long as the dems have a say.

Yup....but it's high on the agenda for Bush if he gets a second term. I think the Republicans will begin right after the '04 election, or shortly after the mid-term election....depending on how the congressional races go this time around.

I think that it would be wise to make this a campaign issue late in the election......so the trial lawyers don't have time to roll out too many damaging negative adds. Think of the potential...the Dems would be forced on the wrong side of the issue.......apologists for ambulance chasers.

That's it! I'm sending my resume to Karl Rove!! I'm certain he'll be impressed.

 

[Chunk]

Instead of a 100K cap on punitive, just make a multiplier...like 2.0 times the amount of ACTUAL damages. That way, big torts (like massive fraud) can get big payouts (only because the the harm was writ large) but slip-n-falls are limited. It's *gasp* fair that way...

 

[bart]

One other reform:

Punitive damages are paid to a charity picked at random, and no attorney fees may be collected from those damages.

By definition punitive damages are to punish the defendant, not enrich the plaintiff and their attorney.

 

[Dizel8]

Many politicians are by trade, surprise, lawyers and as someone else pointed out, trial lawyers are large "givers", so I do not think, we will see any change, as sad as that is.

 

[Cosmo1999]

ya thats for sure, especially if there are a lot of democrats in the office. Democrats have always favored large settlements. Lets see multi-million dollar settlements, lawyer gets 33% of that, lawyer lines democrats pocket for campaign, democrats are against tort reform hmmmmm thats strange I wonder why.

 

[Vector4fun]

Let me state up front that I agree something needs to be done to limit frivolous lawsuits. No Question.

But before everyone starts signing petitions, think about this situation:

You've been shafted to the tune of oh, say $5000 by a large company.

Said company has a staff of lawyers on retainer and/or in house.

Said company has no intention of going to arbitration to settle the matter cheaply.

Said company has Political ties to a Judge in the case.

Said company would prefer to delay trial as long as possible, using every legal manuver possible to make a trial as expensive as possible, thereby intimidating anyone else from filing a similar lawsuit.

How much would you be willing to spend to get your $5k back? Would you risk $20K? $30K? More? Do you know what it costs to hire a couple top-notch lawyers and suffer through a two year discovery period, followed by a week long trial in State Court?

I do, and it costs substantially more than $30K. The Company involved spent more than $135K defending it's self against a $5K lawsuit when the other party was perfectly willing to go to arbitration to begin with. Do you understand the message the Company was trying to send?

(The Company eventually lost btw, and was denied further appeal. The merits of the $5k Judgement plus attorny's fees were upheld. No other damages were sought or ordered.)

Change the laws, but be very careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Let me state up front that I agree something needs to be done to limit frivolous lawsuits. No Question.

But before everyone starts signing petitions, think about this situation:

You've been shafted to the tune of oh, say $5000 by a large company.

Said company has a staff of lawyers on retainer and/or in house.

Said company has no intention of going to arbitration to settle the matter cheaply.

Said company has Political ties to a Judge in the case.

Said company would prefer to delay trial as long as possible, using every legal manuver possible to make a trial as expensive as possible, thereby intimidating anyone else from filing a similar lawsuit.

How much would you be willing to spend to get your $5k back? Would you risk $20K? $30K? More? Do you know what it costs to hire a couple top-notch lawyers and suffer through a two year discovery period, followed by a week long trial in State Court?

I do, and it costs substantially more than $30K. The Company involved spent more than $135K defending it's self against a $5K lawsuit when the other party was perfectly willing to go to arbitration to begin with. Do you understand the message the Company was trying to send?

(The Company eventually lost btw, and was denied further appeal. The merits of the $5k Judgement plus attorny's fees were upheld. No other damages were sought or ordered.)

Change the laws, but be very careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

...Sounds like a good candidate for a reformed small claims court.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

ya thats for sure, especially if there are a lot of democrats in the office. Democrats have always favored large settlements. Lets see multi-million dollar settlements, lawyer gets 33% of that, lawyer lines democrats pocket for campaign, democrats are against tort reform hmmmmm thats strange I wonder why.

Because Republicans never skim off the top of anything. Let's not play this "holier than thou" game. Your boys over there at the GOP are just as crooked, if not worse.

Not to mention, do you think that a good number of lawyers AREN'T REPUBLICAN? Last I heard, those with lots of $$$ usually vote GOP. I want to know who all these money-grubbing phantom lawyers are that habitually vote Democrat.

All this coming from people who support Bush, the most honest man in politics...and one that just happens to have HUGE family ties to the Saudi royal family...who just happens to be a huge (albeit indirect) supporter of terrorism in the world.

By the way, what Dems "have a say in it" these days? Doesn't the GOP control both houses of Congress AND the White House? By your estimation, won't tort reform just fly through Congress? Could it be that your demagogued lawyers' associations ALSO GIVE TO THE GOP? I'll bet so.

Not to mention that the biggest contributors to the Bush camp are accounting firms and stock brokers. Could it be because many of them can get away with more under the morally-compromised Bush admin? Lesser degrees of enforcement typically encourage abuse. I'll bet this is true, as well.

Point is - your boy is no better. Also, if these laws are SO UNJUST, why haven't your boy wonders like Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay done something about it? Seems they have carte blanche these days.

They don't want to. Too much money for them is at stake...

 

[Mevans]

Interesting points, without getting into the polictical debate that seems to invade every topic here, I would like to respond to a few suggestions as mentioned earlier, some would have a small effect, most would not, ..

Elected judges;-Already done in the South and most of the midwest, bad judges get elected also.

No more contingency awards, - Contingency awards generally exist only in tort litigation, which in Florida, like most states is about five percent of litigation. Contractual, (50 percent) and domestic (30 percent) is most litigation, and is seldom done by contingency. Therefore, removing this method would have very little effect on the crowded court system.

No more settlement- get ready for a five year wait to evict your tennant, or swallow the costs of a four hundred percent increase in Court labor, (including more lawyers for all those trials)

Politicians, -many politicians are lawyers, in Florida our legislature is about 30 percent lawyers, which means seventy percent are not

Time limitations on products liability- Already exists in many forms, while there are exceptions, suing for products over five to ten years old is very difficult.

Loseer pays fees- by statute this is already done in many states. It has no effect on litigation, people inclined to sue for frivolous matters do not seem to be hindered by the threat of "loser pays". If a lawyer tells someone their suit is frivolous, they just sue on their own, my last several years of practice, almost half of my litigation practice was against "pro se" litigations, (people representing themselves)

Punitive damage limitations, -also already done, in Florida the punitive damges must be less than three times the actual (compensatory) damages. People hear about outragous damages awards by idiot juries, and then never hear about the trial judge reducing the award. Most aviation buffs have heard about the Piper Cub case against Piper that came back with a 50 million dollar award back in the early 90's. The trial judge reduced the award_ to less than 2 million. ( I am not saying I agree with that award, also that award would not be collectable against Piper today in Florida due to a change in the law) The famous McDonald's hot coffee 4 million dollar case, was reduced to actual medical costs, that never made the paper.

I will certainly not defend the members of my profession who act unprofessionally, but the main problem is our society constantly tells people it okay to blame others, and the juries that buy these arguments. Those attitudes are not going to be fixed by Democrates, Republicans, the National Academy of Trial Lawyers, the NRA, or any other entitly that has "all the answers"

 

[Timebuilder]

Re: ...

Because Republicans never skim off the top of anything. Let's not play this "holier than thou" game. Your boys over there at the GOP are just as crooked, if not worse.

Not to mention, do you think that a good number of lawyers AREN'T REPUBLICAN? Last I heard, those with lots of $$$ usually vote GOP. I want to know who all these money-grubbing phantom lawyers are that habitually vote Democrat.

All this coming from people who support Bush, the most honest man in politics...and one that just happens to have HUGE family ties to the Saudi royal family...who just happens to be a huge (albeit indirect) supporter of terrorism in the world.

By the way, what Dems "have a say in it" these days? Doesn't the GOP control both houses of Congress AND the White House? By your estimation, won't tort reform just fly through Congress? Could it be that your demagogued lawyers' associations ALSO GIVE TO THE GOP? I'll bet so.

Not to mention that the biggest contributors to the Bush camp are accounting firms and stock brokers. Could it be because many of them can get away with more under the morally-compromised Bush admin? Lesser degrees of enforcement typically encourage abuse. I'll bet this is true, as well.

Point is - your boy is no better. Also, if these laws are SO UNJUST, why haven't your boy wonders like Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay done something about it? Seems they have carte blanche these days.

They don't want to. Too much money for them is at stake...

As to paragraphs one, two and three, above:

While there are crooked and disreputable members of both parties, which is not in dispute, the Trial Lawyers, as a group, throw ALL of their support behind the democrats.

I can only think that there must be a VERY good reason for that, my friend.

As for "ties" to the Saudi Royal Family, I can only hope that those ties are VERY strong. Unfortunately, I fear that they are merely friends.

In order to keep their heads, the House of Saud have allowed a violent Islamic sect to gain a grip on their people, and now they are trying to figure out what to do about it. After all, if they kill the infidel, who will buy their oil?

As for paragraph four, need I point out the action of the obstructionist democrat senators who have decided to take leave of their mandate to "advise and consent" and instead have taken up a doctrine of decide and prevent. Apologies to Jesse.

As to paragraph five, democrat Sen. John Corzine of NJ is a former executive of investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. I'll let you ask him about what was "gotten away with" during the nineties under the Clinton administration. All of that Tyco and Enron stuff happened on his watch, if I follow the logic that you are using here. Sarcasm aside, wall street seeks a Bush re-election because he is "business positive" rather than "class envy reactive." A Kerry victory would almost certainly mean a big market correction, and dollars flooding into overseas markets for refuge from wealth redistribution.

John Kerry is married to Theresa Heinz, who, as I'm sure you know, was widowed as a result of a mishap between a helo and an airpplane over a schoolyard outside Philly. It was just a half mile from my home, when I was in radio. Her family company, a huge international concern, is only one example of the hundreds of wealthy firms that are owned by democrats and outsource jobs to overseas plants. In the Heinz case, it is, ironically, 57 overseas plants, like the number on their label that refers to the variety of pickles sold by old H.J.

So, when will we see tort reform? Not until we are no longer ruled by greedy lawyers, from either party. When will that happen? Maybe when Christ returns to rule, but I don't see it happening before then. The Trial Lawyers are a group that specializes in shifting responsibility to those with large resources, but in the end it is you and I who pay the bill, in the form of higher insurance costs and lost jobs.

The Trial Lawyers are American royalty, a new king and court who have replaced the one we overthrew two centuries ago. We have given them this tyrannical power over us in the hope that every injury can be fixed with money, or as they prefer, "made whole," no matter how much they demand for the service.