Tort Reform

In the article “Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by tort laws.” The author Becca Aaronson, explains that sometimes tort laws may not feel fair. Connie Spears is just an ordinary woman who went to the Emergency because she felt some pain in her legs which she told the hospital she is known to have blood clots but, after being checked by the doctors they sent her home with a minor diagnoses. Just a short few days later she ended up in a different hospital with serious illness that caused her to loose both of her legs. She then filed a medical malpractice law suit but, she had to produce adequate expert reports within 120 days of filing their cases or she will be ordered to pay the defendants court fees. Connie Spears argues that

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

This is because when the SOX Act was enacted it provided detailed guidelines with strict sentences if these guidelines were not followed. David E. Hardesty, accountant and author of Corporate Governance and Accounting Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, said it very well, stating “Each place where information could be altered, either inadvertently or on purpose, Sarbanes-Oxley attempts to fix it. These problems were created by people who were willing to take the risk that they could cook the books and get away with it. In today’s environment, the feeling is that if we cook the books, we might get caught.” The following chart shows how since the SOX Act has been implemented there has been a reduction in lawsuits.

For example, Law 196 states “If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out. Wow. What if they’re playing a game with a ball and accidently it hits the other man in the eye? I have to have my eye knocked out too? It was an accident! Also, to add on to law 196, law 199 states that “If he has knocked out the eye of a slave... he shall pay have his value. Why? I mean, I know he’s “just a slave”, but still. He’s still a human being. He should have to pay the same value for both. And what’s have the value of an eye anyway? Half an eye? In Doc. E, (Law 218), “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on the body of a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,... his hands shall be cut off. What if I’m a great surgeon, and I mean like a really good surgeon. It affects the whole city because you just lost one of your best surgeon. He can’t operate now. Also, what if he was already dying? There’s no way I could of saved him but I still get my hands cut off. It’s kind of silly that people actually believe that these laws are fair. It’s weird. Really

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:

Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.

There were 12 lawsuits from Catholic organizations against the department of health and human services in 2012 and there were all about amendments present in the current healthcare laws given by Obamacare. “The 5-4 decision allowed closely-held companies to opt out of offering contraceptives on the basis of religious beliefs. The case hinged on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993” (Obamacare Lawsuits). The National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius, and Halbig V. Sebelius were held in position to advanced premium tax credits and the individual health insurance mandate. The official supreme court ruling was that ”the court upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power to lay and collect taxes” (Obamacare Lawsuits). The court upheld its legitimacy because of the power given by the constitution under the commerce clause.

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

Tort is a civil wrong for which a court of law provides remedy for a civil wrong that has been committed against an individual, Remedy could be sought for a personal loss, financial loss, and personal injury (Smith, 1993). “A tort is simply the Norman word for a wrong but torts have typically been distinguished from crimes and from wrongs identified with contractual relations. Tort law, then, is concerned with civil wrongs not arising from contracts” (White, 2003, p.xxiii).During the very early years of tort been introduced in to legal discourse and proceeding, tort was considered as a wrong that came by way or forceful damage or hurt. It was widely regarded both as a civil wrong and a criminal during those early years, civil wrongs can be classified as a wrong that involves no violence and also a wrong that involves an element of force and violence (Street, 1906).

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,

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.

In the USA also the law is highly evolved and widely used in practise and is evidently successful. This success is massively owed to the prevalence and acceptance of the concept of compensation which can be seen in landmark cases such as the Mcdonald’s coffee case and Donghue vs Stevenson where examplary damages have been awarded. This enables the citizen to have faith and confidence to approach the system in hope of due justice. Overall it can be observed that the lawyers and judges have successfully

Have you ever seen a commercial for mesothelioma victims, saying that billions of dollars have been set aside for those injured by asbestos? That you only need to call the number on your screen to receive your compensation? Or how about the ones for transvaginal mesh implants, Xarelto, or men developing gynecomastia after taking ARVs? These are all tort lawsuits that have been/are being tried in court to punish companies for making faulty products. This seems fair, doesn’t it? It is, don’t get me wrong, but like every good thing it can be taken too far. Let me give you an example.

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). Torts Chapter 7. Retrieved on September 25, 2017 from