The Tort Of Tort Reform

On this film it is showcased through several different cases how the tort reform has impacted individuals’ constitutional and civil rights. It also showcases how large companies and political leaders have used their power for their own purposes as well as to push legislature to pass through the White House and become law by financing their campaigns and helping the candidates to win elections. One of those laws was the caps on punitive damages through tort reform.

Torts are civil laws that are broken and are rules for lawsuits. When these rules are broken they can result in injury and harm this is usually the basis for the claim. Torts are punishable by imprisonment but in most cases tort law is to provide relief for damages and to stop others from doing the same thing. The injured party can sue for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and medical expenses or present and future.

Tort reforms are laws that limit or reduce damages or awards in a specific state. People are in favor of tort reforms because they think that frivolous lawsuits are clogging the courtrooms, which is just not true. In 1992, the National Center for State Court’s (NCSC) data showed that only 2.4% all civil cases brought to court were of medical cases and only 1.7% were product cases. This very clearly shows that frivolous civil cases are not clogging the court room (The Free Library).

Tort reform is a push by special interest to limit tort litigation in the U.S. The documentary Hot Coffee, walks us through 4 case studies on the methods used by the Tort reform lobby. Composed of businesses, manufacturers, hospitals, insurance companies and other businesses. Using their money to affect changes to the 7th Amendment statutes:

According to most news articles and journals interpreting the progression of the tort reform, noneconomic damages reforms are the most common throughout the states. As

Tort reform has intense arguments to both sides and creates a myriad of concerns. On one side of the tort reform movement, defendants such as corporations and medical professionals want limits on the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The benefit of tort reform for defendant is the financial savings. However, a cap placed on medical malpractice cases and other cases that are of negligence would standardize the monetary compensation regardless of the damage. In my opinion, Medical malpractice tort reform is a gray area, for each breach of the standard of care involves a different story and person, therefore the damages vary and should be evaluated fairly. In this essay, both sides of the argument are discussed, with a focus on medical malpractice tort reform.

Tort reform refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis that basically places limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that can be awarded in personal injury lawsuits. Personally, I definitely agree that tort reform should be passed into law for every state because sometimes the damages that are awarded in lawsuits are too excessive. Moreover, tort reform still allows for the plaintiff to recover damages just not at an excessive and unreasonable amount of damages.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

The tort reform battle started in the 1950’s with the insurance industry and their battles. Early on, they realized that they were in charge of the compensations for personal injury victims. This started a PR campaign of “targeting potential jurors through magazine ads.” They tried to attack lawsuits and jurors so they would vote against personal injury cases. Eventually, they moved towards the grassroots campaigns. They campaigned as regular Americans who were fed up with the justice and litigation systems. Today, advocates still fight these battles through the use of PR methods, “misleading reports, lobbying, and manufactured ‘grassroots’ organizations” (History. (2012). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.tortreformtruth.com/about-tort-reform/history/).

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

Tort reform is an extremely debatable topic in the political & legal fields. By definition, tort reform refers to, “The proposed changes made in the civil justice system that directly reduces tort litigation or damages.” Generally, when someone mentions tort reform to an everyday normal person who is not familiar with legalese, they don’t have any idea of what the term “tort reform” is. Throughout this, one will understand through the three interviews conducted that two out of three people don’t necessarily understand the full concept of tort reform or have absolutely no idea what it is. One of the most notorious cases that led to the ongoing debate of tort reform is Liebeck v. Mcdonald’s Restaurant. When the case is brought up, one will say, “Isn’t that the lady that burned herself with coffee and then tried to sue for millions of dollars?” People believe they know the details of the case, however one will be able to see, this particular case is often misconstrued. In my personal opinion, after learning and studying the facts of this case, I don’t understand how a human being could be for tort reform after actually learning about the trials and tribulations that certain people in these kinds of cases, especially Stella Liebeck, have to go through.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own