Comments on: Why Don’t Lawyers Mention the REAL Reason They Don’t Like Tort Reform?

By: Nazim

Nazim — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:57:48 +0000

I’m with Confused in his sentiment. In a trial, the parties present all the information available to a jury. Juries don’t arbitrarily pick numbers out of thin air. They most likely pick them based on the numbers they are given at trial. The resulting awards are often very high because the cost of care in the US is very high. Obviously, this does not account for punitive damages, but those are a different story.

In brief, we give a jury all the elements for making the decision that some attorneys can muster. Does anyone have a better system to suggest?

With respect to Tort Reform, I really don’t see the reason for a cap on damages. I can muster some pretty good reasons that logically argue against such legislation (e.g. cost of care), but my mind always goes to the salaries of those who argue in favor of such caps. Those who most strongly argue in favor of a limit to what a jury can award to cover a lifetime of care usually receive several times the suggested limit as an annual salary…

By: Confused

Confused — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:50:16 +0000

I am confused as to why we can trust a jury to make a decision on whether to impose the death penalty or send someone to prison (depriving an individual of rights) but not to make a decision on liability for a corporation.

By: EZ

EZ — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:03:45 +0000

The issue, I believe, is being reasonable. I do not think anyone would dispute that the family of Abigaile should receive some compensation. But remember the Macdonalds lawsuit. As I recall, a woman bought coffee, subsequently spilled it on her self, and then sued and won. I am not usre tort reform is the solution. Perhaps Judges should throw out more of the ridiculous lawsuits that are brought before them. And charge court costs to the people bringing suit. Remember the Judge who sued a small dry cleaning business for losing his pants. He requested millions.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:55:08 +0000

Mr TML,

Without profit, there would be no insurance industry, and, in fact, no business at all. You can’t blame an insurance company for wanting to make a profit. Every business has the goal of making a profit so that it can continue its existence. “Profit” is not a four-letter word.

Dave

By: JLP

JLP — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:02:19 +0000

TML,

Thanks for the comment.

I was referring to those lawyers who do make money on a contingent basis. I realize there are other kinds of lawyers…

By: Mr. ToughMoneyLove

Mr. ToughMoneyLove — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:54:39 +0000

First, your title is misleading because “tort reform” is important only to those lawyers who make their living representing plaintiffs in contingent fee litigation. There are many others who do not do that kind of work.

Second, I agree that juries cannot be trusted to deliver reasonable money damage verdicts in many cases. But that is not the fault of the lawyers. That is a problem with the morons who serve on juries.

That being said, there is no evidence that tort reform actually results in lower insurance premiums. That is a myth perpetuated by insurance companies who themselves are trying to increase their profits.

In sum, the personal injury lawyers and insurance companies are each motivated by money and juries can’t seem to control themselves.