Tort reform, anybody?
- Thread starter upsciLLion
- Start date
Somethings got to be done, because the current system is abused by trial lawyers who push through so many cases, most bogus, that companies are forced to settle.
Trial lawyers have rosters of clients. People will win a judgement on one claim(say asbestos) and then sue another company(different product) on the same injury, and win. Rinse and repeat. This occurs QUITE frequently. Not only in asbestos and other toxic torts, but also in torts regarding pharmaceuticals.
Hell is some cases, there are no injuries, but "possible" exposure, and they still win.
Then you have bogus cases based on junk science/incomplete data that is passed of as fact when its not.
Don't get me wrong I'm for tort reform, I just don't think capping damages is the answer. I would rather see penalties against lawyer who bring frivolous suits first.
And those victims who can't afford to take on irresponsible corporate giants who have damaged thousands through their irresponsiblity. How many examples would you like?
- Women who died while using the Dalcon shield?
- Asbestos victims?
- Those injured and killed by pollution of Love Canal and other toxic sites?
- The families of those injured and killed in Ford Explorers with known faulty tires and poorly designed suspensions?
Attorneys are bound by both statutes and codes of ethics. That doesn't stop some of them from violating both, but allowing those guilty of injuring others to skate is not a solution to the problem.
Lawyers are like our military killing machines- a necessary evil. We need them, but we should try not to use them much... their usage can be abused and abusive. Just like the military, lawyers can cause massive, unnecessary harm. Right now they are outta control and need to be put in check with serious reform.
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.
We need RIAA and MPAA tort reform.
But this so called reform will make it harder for individuals to sue companies, but not the other way around.
But this so called reform will make it harder for individuals to sue companies, but not the other way around.
And to add to that, the Tort reform proposed by Bush seems less to want to actually cut down on frivolous suits than to protect companies, even at the expense of legitimate lawsuits.
I'd oppose so-called tort reform. Malpractice payouts, etc. are not a drain on the medical system, they account for a miniscule fraction of annual costs, as far as I am aware.
If these things happen QUITE frequently, then you will no doubt be happy to provide us with examples.
Also provide support for you assertion that companies are "forced" to settle over the damage caused by their dangerous, faulty services.
Its not so much the monetary cost. Its the cost of losing Dr's, and were are. The east coast and Texas are losing Dr's in droves because they cant afford to stay in practice anymore due to malpractice insurance costs, which are insanely high because of insane sums of money awarded in malpractice suits.
When Bush propose tort reform that will give better justice to everyone and not just those with more then 250 dollars I will support it.
Yeah, that's how the legal system is supposed to work. Whether or not you win, depends on the case you bring.
Those poor companies are being treated so unfairly. Why should they have to pay for the damage they did to the pee-ons they already paid the 10 cents an hour to work with the asbestos which the man up stairs new was dealy for what 50 years before they stopped using it. They should be thank those companies which killed them for giving them a job in the first place.
Well, I was speaking specifically about the health care system. But in terms of GDP,
"tort-system costs amounted to $246 billion in 2003?excluding vast settlements agreed by tobacco companies (see chart). That represented 2.2% of GDP, compared with just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% by 1970, when the tort industry began to flex its muscles. Tort costs grew by some 15% in 2001, by only a slightly less the year after, and by 5.4% in 2003. The main factor was a considerable rise in liabilities connected with asbestos claims. Mr Bush believes that much of this huge sum is money that companies should not have to part with."
I don't have a problem with 2.2% of GDP.
If businesses want to lower that, they might want to think about pulling products from the market they know to be harmful.
Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?
I would if it was easy, but its not. Court cases arent typically covered by the media. So Im not going to bother showing proof as its not like i could actually link to it.
As for part two. You show an inherient bias. Trial lawyers dont file massive class actions these days. Most top trial firms will dump thousands of court cases on one company, at one time. Most of these are teneous claims at best. They settle because its cheaper than litigating all the cases. Then they get hit again and again with the same tactices. If a company chooses to fight, they are at a severe disadvantage because the case was filed in a friendly area to the particular firm.
FYI this is all based on Texas law and court cases.
What evidence do you have that Insurances costs are insanely high because of malpractice suits? I've read that insurance companies are price gouging, and they are using malpractice suits as justification. I'd say what needs reforming is the insurance industry, not the tort industry.
No its abusing the system. You win a asbestos claim on x injury, you should not be able to say product y also caused x injury too. A civil defense attorney cant mention the plantiff has already collected on the same injury against a different product.
WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.
Here Ill make it simple.
Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.
Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.
Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.
Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter