Gentrifying the Christian ghetto since March 2003.
février 13, 2005
Tort Reform: two birds, one stone
Republicans can help themselves by doing the right thing. Mushrooming litigation and damages costs destroy jobs, raise consumer prices and drive up medical costs.
The Senate recently approved a bill by to prevent lawyers from shopping around for Santa Clause juries. More is needed. This article renders the impact on a human scale:
"Put another way, litigation costs now total about $3,200 per year per family, according to the Institute for Legal Reform, because it's consumers, not businesses, who ultimately pay the litigation tax."
Returning sanity to our tort system benefits regular Americans. It'll also partially defund the Dems' deepest pockets -- trial lawyers. Somethin' so right just can't be wrong. . .
Posted by Discoshaman at février 13, 2005 12:08 AM
| TrackBack
Does the source of the graph show whether it's been normed to inflation?
Whether or not, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Tort costs are rising faster than the economy.
As long as Tort-costs haven't undergone any redefinitions during the interval graphed, or there have been any changes in reportage of such numbers.
So, would Investor's Business Daily forget to ask those questions before publishing?
Not that I don't believe you--or the article. I do know where to look for possible problems with the data presented.
Disco, you seem to be blithely assuming that none of this litigation has merit. Is it not possible that some percentage of the increase in your graph is due to an increase in irresponsible behavior on the part of corporations making hazardous products or engaged in negligent conduct? I don't know if it is or not, but I'd sure want to pin that down before I think about depriving people of their right to their day in court, with a decision by a jury of their peers based on the merits of each case. I mean, it's not as if the corps can't afford competent lawyers!
Michael-
I'm not blithely ignoring anything. The legislation that's been passed thus far was to keep trial lawyers from shopping around to find judges who are known for giving out ridiculously large damage awards in class action lawsuits. I think this is eminently reasonable. Being promised a jury of one's peers is not the same thing as being promised the activist judge of one's choice.
I don't know if it is or not, but I'd sure want to pin that down before I think about depriving people of their right to their day in court.
I have never seen a piece of legislation intended to keep people from having a day in court.
"a decision by a jury of their peers based on the merits of each case.
Having the right to decide in a case doesn't mean judges or juries should be granted omnipotence. It is perfectly reasonable and right for voters and legislators to put limits on the power of juries and judges.
Just as you (and I) believe that victims should be protected from abuse, corporations and consumers should likewise be shielded from capricious abuses of power and frivolous lawsuits.
"Is it not possible that some percentage of the increase in your graph is due to an increase in irresponsible behavior on the part of corporations making hazardous products or engaged in negligent conduct?
If there were such a spike in such behavior, where have we seen it reported? If anything, companies are more concerned and careful than ever to avoid lawsuits.
America is a sue-crazy society. I saw the statistics on Japanese vs. American lawyer-to-engineer ratio. While I've since forgotten the number, it was disheartening to say the least.
I would never want to block people from redress when they've been truly victimized. But I think we do need some reasonable curbs put in place on the growth in lawsuits.
I have never seen a piece of legislation intended to keep people from having a day in court.
Well come on down to Texas and I'll buy you a beer and show you some. :-)
I'm not familiar with the bill that triggered your post; what I see the "tort reform" movement advocating is things like proposals to cap damages, tighten rules of evidence in the defendant's favor, require plaintiffs to file pre-trial bond, allow companies to require private arbitration, etc.
Some attribute American "litigiousness" to the low level of regulation compared to other industrialized countries. With the influence big business has over Congress and state legislatures, lawsuits are the only way to keep rogue corporations in line. Now I'm not saying I think more red tape is the solution, but pinning all the blame on the lawyers and none on the corporations is a little one-sided to say the least.
You claim that companies are "more concerned and careful than ever to avoid lawsuits"—companies like this one? What I see is companies doing the cheap things, like putting ridiculous warnings on their packaging or dropping a few thou on Republican campaign donations, while avoiding any real investment in cleaner and safer technology.