Do Not Buy The Tort Reform Pitch Of Big Business
As a personal injury attorney, I realize that my comments against “tort reform,” or limitations on bringing civil lawsuits, may have little persuasion. However, I cannot remain silent in the face of great injustice, misrepresentation and hypocrisy.
Several bills have just been approved by the Florida House that would limit injured parties’ rights in bringing causes of action against certain companies, such as rental car companies, nursing homes and car manufacturers. In addition, the proposed law would limit punitive damages. Who benefits?
It is the civil justice system, which creates the threat of compensatory and punitive damages, that motivates manufacturers to produce safe precuts. How many times does history have to repeat itself for people to get the point? Automobile manufacturers were sacrificing customers in poorly designed automobiles to save money, before the victims expose the truth in civil lawsuits. The cigarette companies targeted youth to replace their customers who were dying from the cancer caused by their products. It was the civil litigants who exposed the truth, long before the government got involved to reap the benefits. These are only a couple of publicized examples, but these scenarios play out in courtrooms across America every day. And yet, it is the trial lawyers and consumer groups that are portrayed as the enemy.
I was recently at an exclusive club in Sarasota attending a meeting with local state legislators. At the end of the meeting, while people were departing, there was a dangerous and hazardous condition at the front door that could easily cause someone to fall and sustain injury. However, the club posted an individual to warn people of the dangerous situation. As a result, no one was hurt and no one was sued. That is an example of what our tort system has accomplished in our society. Companies and establishments are much more conscious of safety. As a result, claims have declined.
Why would we want to reverse that trend? As a consumer, husband and father, I don’t mind paying a few extra dollars so that the companies can maintain their profits and still provide safe products.
Even if companies realize savings due to limited accountability, you can bet that they will not pass them on to the consumer. If companies do not care about he safety of their customers, as history teaches us, why would they care about saving their customers’ money? A cap on punitive damages, even if set high would allow companies to calculate their costs, and they would simply pass on the expense to the consumer. It is the unpredictability that keeps them honest. It would be more profitable to sacrifiece consumers and pay predictable claims rather than redesign their manufacturing process to create a safer product.
Interestingly, Rep. Mark Flanagan of Bradenton, a sponsor of the legislation limiting civil claims, is presently availing himself of the civil justice system which he hopes to undermine. Public records reveal he has a claim on behalf of his daughter for injuries she sustained from playground equipment. Why would he want to deny his constituents the same right?
In response to sweeping tort reform law, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the legislation as unconstitutional. In the states where the legislation has passed, the Supreme Courts have made it clear that the American civil justice system shall not be treated as a political football.
In the battle of public relations, business organizations, such as Associated Industries and the Chamber of Commerce, are able to rally support and money through its membership, which buys the dissemination of misleading information that undermines our civil justice system. The only common denominator of the victims are the trial lawyers and consumer advocates, who have been accused by the business community of protecting their self-interests.
I would urge anyone who has been involved with the civil justice system, either personally or through a friend or loved one, to write their state representatives or state senators an let them know that no matter how much the business community contributes to their campaign, the victims who need access to the courts should not be disregarded.
Several bills have just been approved by the Florida House that would limit injured parties’ rights in bringing causes of action against certain companies, such as rental car companies, nursing homes and car manufacturers. In addition, the proposed law would limit punitive damages. Who benefits?
It is the civil justice system, which creates the threat of compensatory and punitive damages, that motivates manufacturers to produce safe precuts. How many times does history have to repeat itself for people to get the point? Automobile manufacturers were sacrificing customers in poorly designed automobiles to save money, before the victims expose the truth in civil lawsuits. The cigarette companies targeted youth to replace their customers who were dying from the cancer caused by their products. It was the civil litigants who exposed the truth, long before the government got involved to reap the benefits. These are only a couple of publicized examples, but these scenarios play out in courtrooms across America every day. And yet, it is the trial lawyers and consumer groups that are portrayed as the enemy.
I was recently at an exclusive club in Sarasota attending a meeting with local state legislators. At the end of the meeting, while people were departing, there was a dangerous and hazardous condition at the front door that could easily cause someone to fall and sustain injury. However, the club posted an individual to warn people of the dangerous situation. As a result, no one was hurt and no one was sued. That is an example of what our tort system has accomplished in our society. Companies and establishments are much more conscious of safety. As a result, claims have declined.
Why would we want to reverse that trend? As a consumer, husband and father, I don’t mind paying a few extra dollars so that the companies can maintain their profits and still provide safe products.
Even if companies realize savings due to limited accountability, you can bet that they will not pass them on to the consumer. If companies do not care about he safety of their customers, as history teaches us, why would they care about saving their customers’ money? A cap on punitive damages, even if set high would allow companies to calculate their costs, and they would simply pass on the expense to the consumer. It is the unpredictability that keeps them honest. It would be more profitable to sacrifiece consumers and pay predictable claims rather than redesign their manufacturing process to create a safer product.
Interestingly, Rep. Mark Flanagan of Bradenton, a sponsor of the legislation limiting civil claims, is presently availing himself of the civil justice system which he hopes to undermine. Public records reveal he has a claim on behalf of his daughter for injuries she sustained from playground equipment. Why would he want to deny his constituents the same right?
In response to sweeping tort reform law, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the legislation as unconstitutional. In the states where the legislation has passed, the Supreme Courts have made it clear that the American civil justice system shall not be treated as a political football.
In the battle of public relations, business organizations, such as Associated Industries and the Chamber of Commerce, are able to rally support and money through its membership, which buys the dissemination of misleading information that undermines our civil justice system. The only common denominator of the victims are the trial lawyers and consumer advocates, who have been accused by the business community of protecting their self-interests.
I would urge anyone who has been involved with the civil justice system, either personally or through a friend or loved one, to write their state representatives or state senators an let them know that no matter how much the business community contributes to their campaign, the victims who need access to the courts should not be disregarded.
