General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is the general consensus of DU users regarding TORT reform..............
I haven't heard any of the candidates address the issue.
Thanks in advance for your polite, well reasoned responses.
edhopper
(33,625 posts)is code for GOP speak which means make it hard for normal people to sue and limit the judgements when they due.
It is a big corporate give back for them.
On top of that they want to remove all safeguards that might protect people in the first place so they don't need to sue.
It is pure RW agenda.
clarice
(5,504 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)Personal injury lawyers representing plaintiffs lean Dem.
clarice
(5,504 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)Thank you.
Aristus
(66,467 posts)reform, I counter that what we need is insurance reform.
Greedy assholes don't like paying for malpractice insurance.
KT2000
(20,588 posts)to let responsible parties off the hook by limiting award amounts. The responsible parties are the corporations. Texas has instituted tort reform and it has devastated people who have had claims.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Democratic candidates almost universally oppose it. That's why it's not mentioned much. I assume the consensus of DUers reflect that.
clarice
(5,504 posts)I guess that I was speaking more of frivolous lawsuits that drive up the costs for average
Americans at the expense of rewarding a few privileged 1% attorneys.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Perhaps you can offer an example.
clarice
(5,504 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)"Hot Coffee".
It aired originally on HBO.
I think it would change your mind.
I can not find the full documentary on YouTube, but
there are many clips from the movie available on YouTube.
It follows 4 different cases.
The McDonald's coffee case is one of those 4.
clarice
(5,504 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)and told me how it was misrepresented by corporate media.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)I say No to tort reform
whathehell
(29,095 posts)No to tort reform.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)"Hot Coffee" was a great documentary.
The media really carried the water for McDonald's.
The elderly ladies injuries were horrific.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)By definition, if a plaintiff wins her lawsuit, as Ms. Liebeck did, the lawsuit isnt frivolous. A jury of citizens heard and considered all the evidence, and returned a verdict against McDonalds, as well as awarding punitive damages against McDonalds. The evidence at the trial proved that McDonald's had been on notice for years that its coffee was too hot. Several plaintiffs who had been scalded by their coffee had successfully sued for damages, and McDonalds insisted at the Liebeck trial that it had no idea it was serving coffee capable of inflicting third degree burns and fusing a womans nylons to her thighs. The jury did not find that credible.
McDonald's lost that suit because it lied to the public, it lied to the court, it lied to the jury, and it was civilly liable for the serious injury it inflicted on Ms. Liebeck.
LunaSea
(2,895 posts)If you're really brave, take a look at the photos from the case.
Any search engine will show you in graphic detail what the 3rd degree burns looked like along with the skin graft surgery it took to heal the damage.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Liberal In Texas
(13,580 posts)Why, because you believe the propaganda you've heard?
For a start, check this on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
clarice
(5,504 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Burn incident[edit]
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck was cared for 3 weeks by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for up to two years afterwards.[13][14]
I ended up siding with the plaintiff on this one, particularly after reading more in to it.
See, I can agree with having some "pre-trial" review, but that is another type of discussion.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I wonder what gave you the impression that I was a girl.
clarice
(5,504 posts)That I was corresponding with the other day who has a similar handle...I thought you
were her. My apologies.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Wow, I've had this particular name from different sites, circa 1999.
Liberal In Texas
(13,580 posts)This is one of those stories that is only partially true that the RW uses to justify tort "reform".
Liebecks case was far from an isolated event. McDonalds had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
Tort "reform" is an insidious scheme to keep victims from just compensation and enables Big Business to continue known dangerous practices for no other reason than improving the bottom line.
The complete story:
https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)The media and radio haters completely misrepresented that case. The injured woman (a passenger in a stopped car) got 3rd degree burns because McDonalds was using extremely hot water so they could get more coffee from it. They had already received about 900 burn complaints when this case was filed.
FSogol
(45,529 posts)recommended below in this subthread.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The victim suffered severe burns as described in that documentary
clarice
(5,504 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)major corporate interests by limiting damage awards. So, you see, Republicans would like that. That's what is meant by "tort reform" in general. Limiting awards for things like malpractice or product liability benefits only one side of the equation.
It's not a thing that is supported by most liberals, frankly.
clarice
(5,504 posts)wouldn't those right wing lawyers be limiting their own earning potential?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)background, you see. It's all part of the same equation.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)Their income is not based on winning or losing cases.
edhopper
(33,625 posts)fucking corporations.
Tort reform is like entitlement reform, it's about screwing the populace.
clarice
(5,504 posts)but you ask about support for tort reform, it's a GOP thing pure and simple.
Just because there are a few pro-life Dems doesn't mean Dems support abortion restriction.
clarice
(5,504 posts)edhopper
(33,625 posts)they didn't see you as asking an innocent question, but rather advocating for tort reform. So responded in kind.
It really isn't a subject Dems deal with except to stop it.
Think about asking if any of the Dem candidates are talking about "religious liberty" it's that sort of thing.
clarice
(5,504 posts)edhopper
(33,625 posts)I've been hammered for asking naive questions here. Intent isn't always clear and people have their guard up for troll like post.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Under the guise of "educating". Take it with a grain of salt. There's lots of info you can learn here from awesome posters.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)edhopper
(33,625 posts)it's a minor part of the picture and overshadowed by the larger fraud by the corporations.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A lawsuit that is frivolous is thrown out in the very early motion stages, and the people who bring them are subject to sanctions.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Tort reform. Education reform. Reform school. Reform Party. And so on.
clarice
(5,504 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)thanks to repukes and the insurance lobby.
clarice
(5,504 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)I do not know the position of the candidates.
If you get that information, will you please post it ???
clarice
(5,504 posts)I doubt that it will be addressed. I had no idea that this was such a partisan issue.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)The vast majority of lawsuits are handled by state courts rather than federal ones.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Unless the case has federal jurisdiction.
clarice
(5,504 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)suing too much is the problem?
clarice
(5,504 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Should there be a test before you are allowed to file, who decides?
Do you REALLY think that is the problem??
This is a rightwing talking point, like death tax
clarice
(5,504 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)dear god
I read a very clear rightwing talking point on DU and I respond, and I am a stalker?
nope, nobody is buying that bullshit
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)who file lawsuits with no legal or factual basis. These rules are generally similar to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which says, in part:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
So, you see that there are already procedures in place to prevent "frivolous" lawsuits from getting past the initial proceedings and to sanction those who try to start them. The GOPers' fake "tort reform" is merely a way to protect corporations and insurance companies from almost all personal injury claims and damages.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It was designed (or rationalized to the voters) as a way to keep medical costs down. It failed. Since tort reform, many patients have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said.
Oddly enough, TX Gov. Greg Abbott who received a 5.8 million dollar payout (in addition to receiving a monthly stipend from the settlement for the rest of his life) fully supports tort reform in Texas.
(The Medical Malpractice Myth, Tom Baker, prof. of health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania)
clarice
(5,504 posts)underpants
(182,904 posts)The standard legislation does nothing to address or protect malpractice insurance premiums paid by Dr.s. Jeb got smacked in face by this when he was Governor in Florida.
clarice
(5,504 posts)elleng
(131,143 posts)and it's a STATE matter. This is MY opinion; haven't taken a poll of DU.
clarice
(5,504 posts)pamela
(3,469 posts)It's a way for the powerful to convince the less powerful to give up even more of their power. "We the people" ARE the court system. We are the juries. If you support tort reform, you're basically saying "I can't trust myself to make the right decision" if I'm on a jury. People joke about getting out of jury duty and joke that juries are filled with people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Then, they complain when a jury they thought they were too good to serve on makes a decision they disagree with. The best "tort reform" is people participating in the process.
Ever notice that people who cry "tort reform" seem to have very little problem with the death penalty? They are sooo concerned that some big company might have to pay out too much money because they think jurors are too incompetent to make those decisions but they have no problem letting those same jurors decide if someone lives or dies.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)He used to be a lawyer in Houston. He was out jogging one day and a tree fell on him in West University Place (rich suburb near Rice University). The tree caused him to be permanently paralyzed and in a wheelchair. He sued the property owner and won $10.5 million in damages. He lives off that settlement now.
He's in favor of tort reform, restricting amounts of damages other people can sue for; for others but not for himself. Goddamn hypocrite. I saw him wheeling around the Houston courthouse as a lawyer and later as a civil district judge.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Greg is not a nice person
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)now FUCK THE REST OF YOU."
The Republican mantra.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Litigation costs have not gone down and plaintiffs with injuries are being denied recoveries. Tort reform was a gimmick designed to lessen the power of plaintiff lawyer and it has worked to some degree but at the expense of victims of negligence and product defects
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)at least as the corporatists would implement it.
There are plenty of mechanisms in which openly deficient or bogus claims can be weeded efficiently from the system - Rule 12 motions, motions for declaratory or summary judgment, etc., eliminate the truly meritless claims from the system quite well. Any litigation that survives those motions has some merit 90% of the time.
It's just another bogus ruse to let capital do as it pleases and never he held accountable for the consequences of its actions. Which means it is probably inevitable.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)I once had the great pleasure of sitting in a federal courtroom watching a big firm smartass in a thousand-dollar suit get a Rule 11 sanction handed to him.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Try explaining that one to the corporation that is paying you $750 or more per hour.
Judges tend to hand those out with a little extra "advice" to the lawyer in question, too.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Motions for summary judgment are simple. They act like there are no remedies available for "vexatious or frivolous litigation".
What happens is that the wrongdoers don't pay for these injured parties. The taxpayers pay for the injured and disabled people.