New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Tony Rubolotta
Tony Rubolotta works in the technology industry.
Recent Articles
A Different View on Tort Reform
Far-Fetched But Not Crazy
My No Thank You Note to Obama
Economic Responsibility is Health Care Reform
Party of Irrelevance
Mending the Conservative Split
Attacking Liberty One Puff at a Time
The Illinois GOP: Monkey See, Monkey Do
When Liberty is the Minority View
Obama, Frank & Dodd, LLP
Urgently Needed: A Republican Revival
Socialism, Failure & Harsh Reality
From Fear to Despair to Hope
No Peace at Any Price
Affordable Righteous Indignation
Centrist by Definition
Critical Thinking in the Box
Liberal Economics for Dummies
Repealing the Law of Gravity

Tony Rubolotta

A Different View on Tort Reform
August 22, 2009

You may have heard this from a number of people, including staunch, self-professed conservatives that juries make stupid decisions because they are filled with stupid people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty in the first place. When the conversation turns to tort reform, the same people will proffer any number of ideas on the problems and fixes, generally blaming lawyers and lawyer fees. When I suggest that "smart” people shirking their civic responsibility to serve on juries allow the "dumber bleeding hearts” to run amok, the conversation quickly changes to sports, the weather or anything but tort reform. I bring up tort reform because it seems to have taken a very distant back seat in the health care debate, though it is a very large component of health care cost.

I once related on this page my own experience serving on a jury in a civil suit. There was credible proof that the woman suing for damages was lying about her injuries and where they were sustained. Nonetheless, two jurors appeared intent on awarding this woman something, even if it were less than what she was asking. I felt sorry for the woman too, but was I going to condone and institute an injustice against the defendant in exchange for a good feeling? Whether the defendant had insurance or not was irrelevant to me. Justice was relevant and I made it equally clear that I didn’t think plaintiff deserved a dime, and if anything deserved a reprimand for lying and wasting our time. Another juror took the position I did and between the two of us convinced the others the defendant had no liability and there would be no award.

Civil juries, at least in Illinois, operate under different rules than criminal juries. First, it doesn’t take a unanimous decision and compromise is permitted. That jury I was on could have found for partial liability and awarded what it thought fair compensation. That was what the two bleeding hearts on the jury wanted, a compromise so we could all get out early and go home with a "good feeling” about ourselves. I don’t get a "good feeling” when I compromise with injustice, and I was prepared to stay there and fight it out to the bitter end. Of course, I could have done what the "smart” people do and probably evaded jury duty.

People like John Edwards made their fortune suing doctors because "smart” people left the decision to "dumb” people by shirking their civic responsibility. Edwards played on the emotions of the jury to ramp up damage awards and collect his share. Would he have been as successful had people with a strong sense of justice and sound reasoning abilities been on that jury to counter people who would trade justice for a good feeling?

I am against tampering with lawyers fees because I also believe in a free market. The agreement between the lawyer and his client concerning fees is none of my business. The only avenue I see worth exploring in the area of fees is collusion to fix prices. We have laws that cover price fixing, and if they need to be clarified and enforced when it comes to legal services, that is one part of tort reform I would support.

The only other area I see left to explore is the "frivolous lawsuit”. To a great extent, we rely on judges to make that decision and bar frivolous lawsuits, but apparently that doesn’t always work. I suppose with "empathetic” judges, no lawsuit that holds the promise of taking money from a "have” and giving it to a "have not” is frivolous. I don’t know the answer to this problem. I am not a lawyer and don’t know what power the jury may have toward solving this problem. Can the jury find the lawsuit frivolous and then punish both plaintiff and their attorney for the waste of time everyone suffers because of their greed? Can the jury award defendant and their attorney for their costs and inconvenience? "We, the jury award the plaintiff minus $500”. Can a jury put a minus sign in front of the award?

In conclusion, the best remedy for tort abuse is the citizen that exercises their "smarts” as a participant in the system rather than as an evader of the system. It means using every ounce of intellect and energy you have to combat the "dummies” you complain about making unfair and outlandish awards. It means taking a stand for what is just no matter how long that jury must stay in session. The next time you get a notice for jury duty, do something constructive with it, participate and make the difference that will be tort reform. Lawyers will not fix it, but you can.

Social Bookmarking
              

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review