Tort Reform, how do you feel about it?

[Themius]

What are your feelings on tort reform? In my opinion it's just all a load of shit that takes a dump on our already sketchy legal system. It takes the rights of the people out of court, and replaces it with laws that favor those at fault versus the victims.

I remember the hot coffee case and all the jokes being made. Then when you see what happened to the woman and how McDonalds had hundred of complains and hundred of burns because they recklessly kept the coffee at a temperature that was capable of giving 3rd degree burns in seconds and undrinkable and always kept way above what the manual said to keep it at, it makes me wonder exactly why were we making fun of the woman and dumping millions into advertising "frivolous" law cases as bad for Americans. Is it really bad for us if say Chevy makes a defective car and someone almost dies ends up disfigured for life and then sues Chevy and is awarded 20m for medical bills or life but then tort reform steps in and cuts her 20m into 800k. (Just an example and for some states 800k is beyond the maximum) how does this help the public at all? All this does is hurt those that could some day end up hurt in a hospital with an at fault company.

[Deleted]

I really wish when someone makes a thread specific to their country they'd explain better what these reforms or cases or whatever are too so I don't have to waste more time googling something I might not even find since there's 10000000000 other results relating to it. Am I asking for that much?

Just writing 1 sentence about it then giving some example somewhat resembling the law doesn't make the subject.


Now commenting on the 2 sentences you wrote alone, since I can't find what the new tort reform is, yes, I disagree with it since people should get more money when they're hurt by a product of a firm, this is the point, to hurt the firm back, punish them so they understand the point because some firms can't understand otherwise.

[Deleted]

Whose legal sytem? Who do you refer to as "we" ?

[USConstitution]

It's the US legal system. And if you do not know about it there is a simple solution, stay out of the conversation if you don't want to do any research. And yes, tort reform is bad and ultimately takes rights away from plaintiffs. There are already rules set up to throw out cases without merit.

[Marmot]

stay out of the conversation

On a public discussion forum? Good luck trying to enforce that buddy. No one will take you seriously with a comment like that.

[PHOENIXZERO]

Yeah, the Stella Liebeck story is one of those that was twisted by the media and politicians into a complete joke without reporting any of the facts, not really surprising though considering who they answer to. "Tort Reform" is ridiculous because the only purpose of it is to restrict damages when damages shouldn't be restricted, it should be the hands of the judges and juries to decide what is appropriate. The only benefits there's been from tort reform or the attempts only to benefit insurance companies along with lining the pockets of politicians and their re-election campaign they pay for and has had zero benefit to actual citizens, didn't even get those lower premiums that were promised for passing it in states that did.

Hot Coffee was an interesting film about the efforts of "Tort Reform" in the U.S though I started losing interest when it went into the mandatory arbitration stuff..

[Gheld]

Just think though, if you combined tort reform, with universal health care access, there would be less people afraid to help each other out of a burning car, for fear of a law suit, or less people putting the car into reverse to finish the job to avoid getting sued, etc.

[Catta]

or less people putting the car into reverse to finish the job to avoid getting sued, etc.

There have actually been people who did that?

[Gheld]

There have actually been people who did that?

I don't know, but it's a running joke in North America that if you hit somebody with a car, you should slam it in reverse and finish the job so they can't sue you.

Edit: One thing I know that the US does differently than Canada at least that needs to be reformed, is this garbage about sueing for "emotional damages".

The fact that people can sue for emotional damages in the states damages me emotionally, to the tune of about a billion dollars.

[Themius]

I really wonder if tort reform will be overturned or if the sheep people will continue to blindly follow whatever their representatives and tv says.

[Liara]

I don't know, but it's a running joke in North America that if you hit somebody with a car, you should slam it in reverse and finish the job so they can't sue you.

Edit: One thing I know that the US does differently than Canada at least that needs to be reformed, is this garbage about sueing for "emotional damages".

The fact that people can sue for emotional damages in the states damages me emotionally, to the tune of about a billion dollars.

I'm curious - what do you think about compensating psychiatric medical expenses? Same view that on emotional damages?

[Daelak]

Tort reform is another republican talking point, that in the entire scheme of healthcare isn't shit.

[Laize]

What are your feelings on tort reform? In my opinion it's just all a load of shit that takes a dump on our already sketchy legal system. It takes the rights of the people out of court, and replaces it with laws that favor those at fault versus the victims.

I remember the hot coffee case and all the jokes being made. Then when you see what happened to the woman and how McDonalds had hundred of complains and hundred of burns because they recklessly kept the coffee at a temperature that was capable of giving 3rd degree burns in seconds and undrinkable and always kept way above what the manual said to keep it at, it makes me wonder exactly why were we making fun of the woman and dumping millions into advertising "frivolous" law cases as bad for Americans. Is it really bad for us if say Chevy makes a defective car and someone almost dies ends up disfigured for life and then sues Chevy and is awarded 20m for medical bills or life but then tort reform steps in and cuts her 20m into 800k. (Just an example and for some states 800k is beyond the maximum) how does this help the public at all? All this does is hurt those that could some day end up hurt in a hospital with an at fault company.

If a company knows there is a serious defect in their product capable of killing people and puts it on the market anyway without informing the public, they ought to be sued.

If you want to talk about a car manufacturer producing an unsafe car, let's talk about the Ford Pinto.

They manufactured it and then discovered during production that the absence of a $13 plastic block would cause the car to have a high chance of combustion in a rear-end collision. They did not inform the public. Of course they should be sued for this (Not informing the public of the danger. Not the exclusion of the $13 block. That's their prerogative to do and the customer's prerogative to buy.)

Someone suing a company because their underwear broke and a clip from it popped into their eye? That's just fucking retarded.

There are limits to what a company should be considered liable for. Their product breaking when used outside their constraints (Such as someone using 400 lbs of load on a ladder rated for 300) or being used despite known dangers (drug manufacturers) are not among them.

[Geary]

Just want to make it clear, because it hasn't been explicitly stated here: I'm assuming you all are talking about *Federal* tort reform, and not tort reform on a state by state basis.

I do not support federal tort reform as suggested by recent proponents, but I would support some state reforms, depending on which state we're talking about.

[Deleted]

It's the US legal system. And if you do not know about it there is a simple solution, stay out of the conversation if you don't want to do any research. And yes, tort reform is bad and ultimately takes rights away from plaintiffs. There are already rules set up to throw out cases without merit.

Yeah, stupid us none americans. Who might have thought about the idea, that there are specific forums, especially dedicated in discussing such topics. But, of course, as long as its something US related, it'll be posted on a gaming forum like MMO-C.

Most people dont even care about your weekly school shootings or police men beating a black down.

[Themius]

If a company knows there is a serious defect in their product capable of killing people and puts it on the market anyway without informing the public, they ought to be sued.

If you want to talk about a car manufacturer producing an unsafe car, let's talk about the Ford Pinto.

They manufactured it and then discovered during production that the absence of a $13 plastic block would cause the car to have a high chance of combustion in a rear-end collision. They did not inform the public. Of course they should be sued for this (Not informing the public of the danger. Not the exclusion of the $13 block. That's their prerogative to do and the customer's prerogative to buy.)

Someone suing a company because their underwear broke and a clip from it popped into their eye? That's just fucking retarded.

There are limits to what a company should be considered liable for. Their product breaking when used outside their constraints (Such as someone using 400 lbs of load on a ladder rated for 300) or being used despite known dangers (drug manufacturers) are not among them.

That thing you said... a clip popping is exactly why we have tort reform like this now, because people came up with things like "people will start suing for x and y" and the public was like, well that makes sense and we like yep pass it!

[Jerion]

There ARE cases of frivolous lawsuits. There was a guy that sued the maker of his motor home because he put it on cruise control and then went to the bathroom. Apparently he thought cruise control meant it drives itself, even if there are turns. I'm not going to speak up on whether I agree or not with tort reform, because I don't know what they are trying to reform. I'm just saying that there are dumb cases.

[Laize]

That thing you said... a clip popping is exactly why we have tort reform like this now, because people came up with things like "people will start suing for x and y" and the public was like, well that makes sense and we like yep pass it!

Except that actually happened. Patterson v Victoria's Secret

[Themius]

There aren't enough people who do theses law cases to warrant restricting hundred of millions of people from being able to get what they need and deserve.

[Dazzy]

It's the US legal system. And if you do not know about it there is a simple solution, stay out of the conversation if you don't want to do any research. And yes, tort reform is bad and ultimately takes rights away from plaintiffs. There are already rules set up to throw out cases without merit.

There are rules set, but they are not nearly defined enough, and they are too often interpreted very badly.

Man sues mcdonalds for burning himself when HE spills hot coffee on himself. Awarded $700,000 because the cup didn't read "hey dipshit, this is HOT" in giant red neon letters. = bad interpretation

Judges are no different than any other person, there are some with no common sense and bad judgement. Our laws need to be written word by word so there is no chance they can be interpreted 5 different ways by 5 different people.

---------- Post added 2012-07-29 at 09:19 PM ----------

Except that actually happened. Patterson v Victoria's Secret

Was she 400 pounds trying to fit into a size 1? lol