![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
|
To subscribe to RSS feed click on image or copy and paste the following url into your RSS reader. --- http://www.gravierhouse.com/blog.rss
Category: Politics & The LawThe Need for Tort Reform
Most people view the "need" for tort reform in monetary terms. Law and economics. Risk/benefit analyses.
But what I find interesting about tort reform is that, in my opinion, it has very little to do with money. There are, of course, some extremes. The insurance industry, for example, which profits both from scaring its customers into paying more premiums, and from convincing legislators or judges and jurors to limit its responsibility for providing relief. Or with extremely dangerous products, like tobacco, or asbestos, or pharmaceuticals, where litigation can have a dramatic effect, both positively and negatively. But, in the grand scheme of things, there isn't that much money involved. Insurance costs, for example, represent only 0.6% of the annual gross receipts of large businesses, around only 1% for smaller companies. The direct costs of medical malpractice litigation, (including settlements/awards, insurance premiums, self-insurance costs, attorneys fees, and costs of litigation), account for only 1% of total health care expenditures. Products liability litigation accounts for only $0.26 of every $100 of retail sales. It's just, in the grand scheme of things a cost, (and a relatively small cost) of doing business. And yet it strikes an emotional cord. Why? Arrogance and autonomy. That, in my opinion, is really what it comes down to. Lawyers, doctors, self-made men and woman, accountants, engineers, and corporate executives don't want to be second-guessed by ordinary people whom they don't consider their peers. So take a deep breath. Take a step back. Try to put yourself at the plaintiff's table, instead of the defendant's. Or, better yet, place yourself in the jury box, or on the bench. And ask yourself this question: Who do you trust to make decisions? Who do you trust to protect you and your family from dangerous products? From unfair business practices? To protect and preserve the environment? To decide what you need to know? To determine what's right, and what is fair? The Government? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Business leaders? CEOs? Bernie Ebbers? Ruppert Murdock? Martha Stewart? Hank Greenberg? Dick Cheney? Kenneth Lay? ExxonMobil? Philip Morris? Allstate? "You know, so much of the time we're just lost" says Paul Newman to the jury playing the fictional character of Frank Galvin in The Verdict. "We say, 'Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.' And there is no justice. The rich win. The poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after time, we become dead. We think of ourselves as victims, and we become victims. We become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our institutions, and we doubt the law. But today" he tells the jury, "you are the law. Not some book. Not the lawyers. Not the marble statue, nor the trappings of the court. They are just symbols, of our desire to be just. They are, in fact, a prayer. A fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, 'Act as if ye had faith. Faith will be given to you.' If we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves." [See The Verdict, © Copyright 1982 by 20th Century Fox, written by David Mamet, based on the novel by Barry Reed, produced by Richard Zanuck & David Brown, and directed by Sidney Lumet.] [Note - The views expressed on this political blog / blawg relating to corporate welfare, the myth of the "litigation explostion", trickle-down or supply-side economics, and other issues are the personal observations of Stephen J. Herman as a practicing attorney and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, Herman Mathis, LTLA, LAJ, ATLA, AAJ, Public Justice, TLPJ, Loyola Law School, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.] Comments
Posted by
(User #21)
July 9, 2006 - 8:45pm
Tort Reform Debated
There is a whole lot of fuss on Tort Reform.People are arguing without knowing what actually is the matter.Tort Reform has to be viewed with an optimists eye.
I truly feel tat there is an urgent need for tort reform. Especially in the medical sector. Tort reform has been established in Texas. It has improved the economic status of Texans. Read more about it from this site I came across. www.dickweekley.com
Posted by
(User #1)
July 10, 2006 - 7:59am
Tort Reform Debated (response)
Thank you for your comments.
In my view, even if you view tort reform with an optimistic eye that it will work (in the sense that the benefits will outweigh the costs for society as a whole), the type of tort reform we have now is fundamentally flawed because society accepts the benefits while forcing all of the costs to be paid by a few. If society wants the benefits, society should be responsible for paying the costs. But by forcing tort victims, and tort victims alone, to bear all of the costs, tort reform, as currently structured, is incompatible with not only fundamental fairness, but the tenets of Due Process, Equal Protection, and Just Compensation, (not to mention Trial by Jury and Access to the Courts). A few nameless people pay the freight, and everyone else gets a "free ride". In addition, the reality is that, as an economic matter, tort reform does not "work". First of all, in a general sense, tort reform, as currently structured, is essentially a form of trickle-down, supply-side, "reverse-Robin Hood", "voodoo" economics. Which doesn't work. Second, tort reform measures in particular have not actually been shown to reduce premiums or other "costs" of the tort system. You mentioned, for example, the tort reform in Texas. Similar tort reform was enacted in Georgia, where medical malpractice premiums have increased by as much as 57.5%. In response, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association admitted that: “We have not promised price reductions with tort reform.” In Texas itself, where tort reform was promised to improve medical care, recent HealthGrades reports suggest that medical errors are actually on the rise. Moreover, in a study conducted by doctors, recently published by the Harvard School of Public Health, the physicians found that the current tort system does a pretty good job of resolving malpractice claims, and that weeding out non-meritorious (and only non-meritorious) claims would reduce compensation and administrative costs by no more than 13-16%. (There are countless examples in Recent Facts, Statistics, and Opinions , the English Rule
, and elsewhere on this website/blog and in my book, America and the Law: Challenges for the 21st Century.) The Dick Weekly website you reference is interesting. But it seems to have a lot of unsupported opinion and hyperbole. Sure, tort reform generally advances business interests, (although I could make a pretty solid argument that the repeal of joint and several liability actually hurts local, in-state, small businessmen). Don't get me wrong: I think it's important that businesses and corporations be allowed to thrive, and not be needlessly burdened by a lot of bureaucratic taxes and rules. And I certainly believe that we need to support the medical profession. But the question for the community is not whether legislation will advance a particular business, or industry, or business interests generally. The question is whether it will benefit society as a whole.
Posted by
Anonymous
July 13, 2007 - 2:14am
RE: Tort Reform Debated
I live in Texas snd I don't feel economically benefited
by so-called "tort reform" one bit.My wife and I cannot get medical insurance coverage. You cannot see a specialist unless you have insurance or you go "indigent". |
||
|
Copyright © 2005- Gravier House Press. All rights reserved.
Legal Blog Design & Maintenance by WebJuris
|