logo

Friviolous Lawsuits vs. Consumer Protection: The Pros and Cons of Tort Reform

image
Created: 22 November, 2016
Updated: 17 October, 2022
3 min read

One of the most vexing legal and political issues in recent years has been tort reform. Typically rooted in the idea that plaintiffs in civil cases have been able to recover excess damages or force businesses to settle frivolous cases, tort reform seeks to limit the damages that such plaintiffs and their attorneys can recover.

Pros: Bring An End to Frivolous Lawsuits

Tort reform supporters typically point to three reasons to limit damages in civil cases: the prevalence of property litigation, cases that generate excessive damages, and a chilling effect on medical malpractice cases.

Many tort reform proponents argue that these kinds of litigations constitute "nuisance suits" that force businesses to pay up to simply make a case go away, wasting time and money. Most tort reform proposals would significantly curb attorneys' ability to bring these types of cases.

ALSO READ: Mass Tort Cases Cripple California Court System at Expense of Taxpayers

Tort reform backers also point to cases in which damages have been excessive. They frequently cite the woman who received a multimillion dollar verdict against McDonald's after spilling hot coffee on herself (see Legal Zoom’s “Top Ten Frivolous Lawsuits”).

Finally, medical doctors argue that medical malpractice suits often represent a mix of nuisance cases and excessive damages, driving up health care costs. They frequently cite evidence that higher premiums for medical malpractice insurance are reducing the number of doctors in high-risk practices.

Cons: Don't Tilt System Toward the Powerful

The most vocal opponents of tort reform are, unsurprisingly, attorneys who represent plaintiffs in civil cases. Certainly, lawyers have a higher opinion of their role in society than is painted by tort reform proponents. A slip and fall lawyer in Los Angeles characterizes the issue simply: “The law gives victims of accidents that are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct of another the right to seek monetary compensation for their injuries, both physical and economic, from the responsible party.”

Civil attorneys offer a simple argument, backed by consumer protection groups, that limiting awards in civil cases would remove an important check against misconduct by businesses, doctors, and other organizations.

These tort reform opponents cite cases where major corporations committed serious legal violations and were only held accountable by a civil verdict. For instance, the massive lawsuits against tobacco companies for hiding evidence about nicotine forced massive changes across the industry.

On a more granular level, opponents of tort reform argue that slip and fall attorneys play a valuable role by providing a financial reason for businesses to abide by health and safety regulations.

IVP Existence Banner

According to tort reform opponents, capping damages - and making it harder to sue - would allow companies to run roughshod over the public and remove the recourse that keeps companies, doctors, and others honest.

Action Remains Elusive

Arguments on both sides of tort reform have been made across the country in recent years. While the issue continues to be debated, there has been little appetite for actually passing the biggest reforms at the federal level. It remains to be seen if that will change anytime soon.

Photo Credit: Andrey Burmakin / Shutterstock.com

Latest articles

votes
Wyoming Purges Nearly 30% of Its Voters from Registration Rolls
It is not uncommon for a state to clean out its voter rolls every couple of years -- especially to r...
27 March, 2024
-
1 min read
ballot box
The Next Big Win in Better Election Reform Could Come Where Voters Least Expect
Idaho isn't a state that gets much attention when people talk about politics in the US. However, this could change in 2024 if Idahoans for Open Primaries and their allies are successful with their proposed initiative....
21 March, 2024
-
3 min read
Courts
Why Do We Accept Partisanship in Judicial Elections?
The AP headline reads, "Ohio primary: Open seat on state supreme court could flip partisan control." This immediately should raise a red flag for voters, and not because of who may benefit but over a question too often ignored....
19 March, 2024
-
9 min read
Nick Troiano
Virtual Discussion: The Primary Solution with Unite America's Nick Troiano
In the latest virtual discussion from Open Primaries, the group's president, John Opdycke, sat down ...
19 March, 2024
-
1 min read
Sinema
Sinema's Exit Could Be Bad News for Democrats -- Here's Why
To many, the 2024 presidential primary has been like the movie Titanic - overly long and ending in a disaster we all saw coming from the start. After months of campaigning and five televised primary debates, Americans are now faced with a rematch between two candidates polling shows a majority of them didn’t want....
19 March, 2024
-
7 min read