what is wrong with tort reform?
- Thread starter 67gt500
- Start date
in a general sense it would make people and attorneys be held responsible financially for bringing frivelous lawsuits to the court systems.
<< WTF is a tort, and why the HELL would I want to reform it??
amish
>>Why are you pissed at the fact that you don't know what a word means?
Noun: tort
1. Any wrongdoing for which and action for damages may be brought
Synonyms
civil wrong
1. Any wrongdoing for which and action for damages may be brought
Synonyms
civil wrong
how about the one that brought the bloodsuckers, er, leeches, er, lawyers into existence. we can scrap just that one and save the rest.
Tort reform will never pass in this country as long as there exists an incestuous relationship amongst trial lawyers, judges and congressional representatives. Since the ABA regulates lawyers, lawyers become judges, and senators/representatives are predominently lawyers, there is no way in hell that tort reform will come from any of those bodies since it threatens their livelihood. Plus, liberals detest the very idea of limiting damages because it means that reasonable might prevail over emotion. God forbid.
Why would anyone oppose pastry reform. I'm all for plaintorts reforming and becoming chocolate torts.
And as a member of the "bloodsuckers, er, leeches, er, lawyers" class and member of the ABA, I will of course oppose tort reform. But not for the reasons listed here. Ask any attorney what type of insurance (s)he has, limited tort or full tort. Betcha the answer is full tort. Do you really want to give away your right to collect for pain and suffering? For what? A miniscule savings and the loss of a deterrent?
People think that a jury award in the millions against McD for some spilled coffee is crazy. The thing is that they dont understand the reason behind the award. Same thing with the large Med Mal awards.
<<bloodsucker gets off his soapbox>>
And as a member of the "bloodsuckers, er, leeches, er, lawyers" class and member of the ABA, I will of course oppose tort reform. But not for the reasons listed here. Ask any attorney what type of insurance (s)he has, limited tort or full tort. Betcha the answer is full tort. Do you really want to give away your right to collect for pain and suffering? For what? A miniscule savings and the loss of a deterrent?
People think that a jury award in the millions against McD for some spilled coffee is crazy. The thing is that they dont understand the reason behind the award. Same thing with the large Med Mal awards.
<<bloodsucker gets off his soapbox>>
<< Why would anyone oppose pastry reform. I'm all for plaintorts reforming and becoming chocolate torts.
>>
Healthier torts should me made from tofu!
why is it opposed?
Because torts are tasty enough as it is. Besides, tort reform is very delicate -- a single mistake could turn them into ordinary cupcakes.
Because torts are tasty enough as it is. Besides, tort reform is very delicate -- a single mistake could turn them into ordinary cupcakes.
<< Ask any attorney what type of insurance (s)he has, limited tort or full tort. Betcha the answer is full tort. Do you really want to give away your right to collect for pain and suffering? For what? A miniscule savings and the loss of a deterrent?
>>
Attn: This is not a flame or an argument.
I do not understand the connection here, probably because I am unsure of what 'tort insurance' is.
Could you clarify this for a layman?
There are many things wrong with tort reform and many reasons to do it. In the first place, without the threat of huge judgments against a company, say GM, that makes a calculation that they can more economically settle with 250 families of burn victoms over faulty gas tanks than to pay to fix them, there will be that temptation to put company profit over human life. For example, soppose somebody dies of a heart attack as a result of an HMO denying a patient a test that could have picked up the disease, you can now just sue for the value of that test. This is a huge loophole that tends to make profit over people more tempting. In other words, law suits are the corporate equivalent of the death penealty. Keeps um honest.
On the other side of the ledger, there is a temptation, every time somebody stubbs a toe, to want to sue for millions. The fear is that people are scum. But what gets left out is that corporations are run by people who by that reasoning are every bit as much scum themselves.
Each side wants to balance this totally in their own favor. Society, therefore, will have to do it's best to come to some middle ground where the best interest of everybody is served.
On the other side of the ledger, there is a temptation, every time somebody stubbs a toe, to want to sue for millions. The fear is that people are scum. But what gets left out is that corporations are run by people who by that reasoning are every bit as much scum themselves.
Each side wants to balance this totally in their own favor. Society, therefore, will have to do it's best to come to some middle ground where the best interest of everybody is served.
Tort reform goes beyond the oft-quoted "corporations are evil" bit used every time this topic comes up. Something simple as "loser pays" is enough of a tort reform to discourage some of the absolutely ridiculous lawsuits that are filed every day. The notion of "nuisance value" given to frivilous lawsuits by corporations, whereby otherwise meritless claims with a notion of truth are dismissed by a $5,000+ payment representing the cost of defense to the corporation, is absolutely ridiculous and makes a mockery of the civil justice system. There are people who go around making a living out of slip and falls, and they are quite adept at manipulating insurance companies and large corporations to pay their salaries through civil settlements.
Ah, but all corporations are evil. F*ck them all. Consumers are just innocent little lambs.
*snicker*
Ah, but all corporations are evil. F*ck them all. Consumers are just innocent little lambs.
*snicker*
I do not understand the connection here, probably because I am unsure of what 'tort insurance' is.
With full tort, when you are injured, you can sue to recover your medical bills, lost wages, AND pain and suffering and mental anguish. With limited tort, they pay your med.s, but you cannot sue for anytpe of pain & suffering, etc. (unless you have what the legislature defines as a serious enough injury to constitute an allowable by-pass of the limited tort option.) For giving up your right to sue, you save a few bucks. Literally.
I think Moonbeam did a good, quick synopsis of the arguments.
With full tort, when you are injured, you can sue to recover your medical bills, lost wages, AND pain and suffering and mental anguish. With limited tort, they pay your med.s, but you cannot sue for anytpe of pain & suffering, etc. (unless you have what the legislature defines as a serious enough injury to constitute an allowable by-pass of the limited tort option.) For giving up your right to sue, you save a few bucks. Literally.
I think Moonbeam did a good, quick synopsis of the arguments.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter