Who Really Gets Burned With Tort Reform?

[marmar]

from YES! Magazine:



Who Really Gets Burned With Tort Reform?
It's not about protecting ordinary people. It's about the profits of the people and corporations who cause injuries.

by Doug Pibel
posted Mar 15, 2012


A long-running propaganda campaign has convinced a large segment of the U.S. population that “tort reform”—limiting damage awards, making it harder to sue, and limiting access to courts—is good for all of us.

It’s been a simple, two-part attack: Threaten access to health care (“Doctors are quitting, because of the cost of malpractice lawsuits”) and play on moral outrage (“Undeserving people get millions through frivolous lawsuits”).

We’ve heard that we have to clamp down on the runaway results produced by ambulance-chasing attorneys.

The movie Hot Coffee looks at the reality. The title refers to the infamous Stella Liebeck case. You know the one: A lady spills McDonald’s coffee in her lap, then cashes in for millions. Crazy, right? ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/9-strategies-to-end-corporate-rule/who-really-gets-burned-with-tort-reform

[climatetime]

1. Who really gets hurt by tort reform

The middle class is the greatest number of people that get

hurt by tort reform. These corporations are blocking us the 99%

from any form of defense against corporate control of laws and

government.

The truth is anything the 1 % of republican lobby will be

for the destruction of Democracy and enslavement of the middle class.

I have yet to hear anything from the rethugs that is good for the middle

class.

[Suich]

2. I never really understood what tort reform was about...

it kind of seemed to be a good idea.

Then I saw "Hot Coffee" a couple of weeks ago and was flabbergasted!

Tort reform is all about protecting corporations.

[Warpy]

3. If they want to limit payouts they need to lobby for universal single payer health insurance

because that is the one thing that will limit the payouts in most liability cases. Pain and suffering awards will be negligible compared to the lifetime of expensive care needed for severe damage to someone's health.

I live in Liebeck's town. Her injuries were horrific and that McDonald's had numerous complaints. However, the appeals court worked the way it was supposed to and the jury's award was deemed excessive. Mrs. Liebeck got payment for her medical care, what she had originally asked for, not anything extra.

Most high profile multimillion dollar damage awards are reduced on appeal, that's the way the system works. All "tort deform" does is abolish the right of the people to appeal to the government for redress of grievances, which is what the civil courts really are.

It's just another attack on the Bill of Rights by the party of the rich and powerful.