Tort Reform Forum

[A'nold]

This will not happen with a Democrat majority.

That's funny. I thought you might say that. I am just not sure how much longer that majority will hold. I guess we will find out in November.

Anyone with half a brain easily sees through the insurance lobby's bs. However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses. The sad thing is that this will absolutely devestate these same people. Lose you daughter because a doctor injects here with rat poison? Here's 50k baby, don't you feel better now?

To say that any amount of money can replace a lost loved one is patently absurd. I'm not sure why 50k is too much. Was your hypothetical daughter's life worth 150k? 1.5 mil? Are there actuaries that determine this sort of thing?

Secondly, how can we even reform something when we can't even seem to come up with a clear legal definition of it?

What the hell are you talking about?

[TheTopBloke]

To those people that voted yes, you're fucking morons!

[TheTopBloke]

Not sure which section this post would go under, but I am curious if anyone was able to catch Stossel last night and the possible impending tort reform? What are your opinions on tort reform and do you think it will pass in the future? What would the implications be on employment in the legal sector if damages become capped? If you missed it last night, I suggest you watch the video and see what I am talking about. It is very interesting to see that there could be another push to cap damages and come out with a "loser pays" system to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

I have no doubt the fascists will vote FOR it.

[TheTopBloke]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86GQf4F8htI

[TheTopBloke]

--ImageRemoved--

[ravens9111]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

[TheTopBloke]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

[ravens9111]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

How do you know that setting a cap would increase the number of plane crashes? Can you prove that if there is a cap the number of airline deaths would increase?

Counterexample: Cerebral palsy has been linked to lack of oxygen. Attorneys claim that the doctor should have delivered via c-section. Now, c-sections are used over 30% of all deliveries, yet the rate of cerebral palsy has not changed.

[TheTopBloke]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

How do you know that setting a cap would increase the number of plane crashes? Can you prove that if there is a cap the number of airline deaths would increase?

Counterexample: Cerebral palsy has been linked to lack of oxygen. Attorneys claim that the doctor should have delivered via c-section. Now, c-sections are used over 30% of all deliveries, yet the rate of cerebral palsy has not changed.

How do you know it does not?

Yes I can prove it.

Setting the counterexample aside just for the moment.

Do you believe that when a cap is created it will be used?

Do you believe the insurance companies will not attempt to lower that standard even further?

How much money is your life worth? Should we base the amount awarded solely on the value of you?

I know the cap is $500k, but what if I offered you $50k? When do we get to the point where it becomes obscene and tort is moot?

What about setting the cap today and not accounting for the inevitable inflation that will reduce the real value of the award even further as time goes on?

[GATORTIM]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

This also presumes that death payouts resulting from airline crashes are the only thing that drives risk mgmt.

[TheTopBloke]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

This also presumes that death payouts resulting from airline crashes are the only thing that drives risk mgmt.

LOL! I don't see how you can presume this is the ONLY thing that drives risk management. At the same time, you cannot say it's not a primary concern. There can be no doubt that a portion of risk management within the airline business considers not losing airplanes and killing people, does it not?

[GATORTIM]

dbl post

[GATORTIM]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

This also presumes that death payouts resulting from airline crashes are the only thing that drives risk mgmt.

LOL! I don't see how you can presume this is the ONLY thing that drives risk management. At the same time, you cannot say it's not a primary concern. There can be no doubt that a portion of risk management within the airline business considers not losing airplanes and killing people, does it not?

I'm sure it does, but not to the extent that our skies will be filled with planes held together by scotch tape and bubble gum. Planes have not gotten much larger and are carrying more and more passengers every year; however, airline disasters are no more prevalent and flying is seemingly becoming safer. Presuming that the $ amount for death payouts in the event of a crash is correct and has been in place for a while there must be something else (more important) motivating risk mgmt decisions.

[TheTopBloke]

Getting back to the counterexample. Why should we put caps on torts?

[vamedic03]

Not sure which section this post would go under, but I am curious if anyone was able to catch Stossel last night and the possible impending tort reform? What are your opinions on tort reform and do you think it will pass in the future? What would the implications be on employment in the legal sector if damages become capped? If you missed it last night, I suggest you watch the video and see what I am talking about. It is very interesting to see that there could be another push to cap damages and come out with a "loser pays" system to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

1) Why the hell is this in the Employment forum?

2) Have you taken Torts?

3) Are you in law school?

[camstant]

john stossel is a doucher. nuff said.

[ravens9111]

Again, can anyone explain why a plaintiff should be awarded damages based on how much money the defendant has?

Example:
Airplane crash pays out $500k max. per claim. That's a cap. That allows the airline to make a 'business decision' to loosen 'risk management' to allow for the possibility of a crash in order to reduce costs.

Isn't it nice to know when you die you're worth $500k or less, and that the airline will continue to operate for years to come in the same manner?

It's not about deep pockets. It's about setting a standard by which corporations can continue to operate without regard to safety.

How do you know that setting a cap would increase the number of plane crashes? Can you prove that if there is a cap the number of airline deaths would increase?

Counterexample: Cerebral palsy has been linked to lack of oxygen. Attorneys claim that the doctor should have delivered via c-section. Now, c-sections are used over 30% of all deliveries, yet the rate of cerebral palsy has not changed.

How do you know it does not?

Yes I can prove it.

Setting the counterexample aside just for the moment.

Do you believe that when a cap is created it will be used?

Do you believe the insurance companies will not attempt to lower that standard even further?

How much money is your life worth? Should we base the amount awarded solely on the value of you?

I know the cap is $500k, but what if I offered you $50k? When do we get to the point where it becomes obscene and tort is moot?

What about setting the cap today and not accounting for the inevitable inflation that will reduce the real value of the award even further as time goes on?

How do I know it does not? Well, if airline companies increase risk and airline crashes do increase, fewer people will fly that airliner. That will cause the airline companies to remain cautious or they will lose money from less passengers. Also, I am pretty sure the FAA still will enforce the same regs. and regulations as before. That won't change. I find it hard to believe that airline crashes would increase dramatically.

Why would insurance companies lower the standards from airline deaths? I assume you are talking about liability insurance the airline carries. It is set in the insurance premium the airline pays, no? The higher the liability coverage, the higher the premium. If the amount was reduced from $500k to $50k, their premium would go down and result in lower profit to the insurance company, right? The risk of payout is always calculated in premiums (actuaries). No matter what happens, the insurance company will always want to pay less. It doesn't really matter what the amount is.

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

[TheTopBloke]

How do I know it does not? Well, if airline companies increase risk and airline crashes do increase, fewer people will fly that airliner. That will cause the airline companies to remain cautious or they will lose money from less passengers. Also, I am pretty sure the FAA still will enforce the same regs. and regulations as before. That won't change. I find it hard to believe that airline crashes would increase dramatically.

Why would insurance companies lower the standards from airline deaths? I assume you are talking about liability insurance the airline carries. It is set in the insurance premium the airline pays, no? The higher the liability coverage, the higher the premium. If the amount was reduced from $500k to $50k, their premium would go down and result in lower profit to the insurance company, right? The risk of payout is always calculated in premiums (actuaries). No matter what happens, the insurance company will always want to pay less. It doesn't really matter what the amount is.

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

You just got caught in the trap. There is plenty of evidence over several years that no matter how successful the insurance companies are in creating a fascist state, they simply do not carry those savings forward. I'm not really interested in fattening the bottom line. I'm interested in keeping the playing field level. Further, the excuse that there are too many frivolous lawsuits is totally unjustified, and we already have SLAPP for that purpose. So I see no legitimate reasoning for capping awards. And to be a lawyer pursuing the reduction of awards is just plain stupid.

[camstant]

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

It's a matter of practicality. If the airline can pay, then they should. Some dude driving down the highway wont have the money to pay so how can the court force him to? They cant, but he better be coughing up what hes got. Its not "a price on life", its medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering etc etc etc... all of which are the fault of the negligent. Unfortunately, sometimes the negligent is dirt poor and cant pay for the damage they caused.

[ravens9111]

How do I know it does not? Well, if airline companies increase risk and airline crashes do increase, fewer people will fly that airliner. That will cause the airline companies to remain cautious or they will lose money from less passengers. Also, I am pretty sure the FAA still will enforce the same regs. and regulations as before. That won't change. I find it hard to believe that airline crashes would increase dramatically.

Why would insurance companies lower the standards from airline deaths? I assume you are talking about liability insurance the airline carries. It is set in the insurance premium the airline pays, no? The higher the liability coverage, the higher the premium. If the amount was reduced from $500k to $50k, their premium would go down and result in lower profit to the insurance company, right? The risk of payout is always calculated in premiums (actuaries). No matter what happens, the insurance company will always want to pay less. It doesn't really matter what the amount is.

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

You just got caught in the trap. There is plenty of evidence over several years that no matter how successful the insurance companies are in creating a fascist state, they simply do not carry those savings forward. I'm not really interested in fattening the bottom line. I'm interested in keeping the playing field level. Further, the excuse that there are too many frivolous lawsuits is totally unjustified, and we already have SLAPP for that purpose. So I see no legitimate reasoning for capping awards. And to be a lawyer pursuing the reduction of awards is just plain stupid.

Your fascism analogy is unfounded. But that's fine. You can think that if you like. You say the insurance companies do not carry "those savings forward". How do you really know those savings would not be carried forward? If payouts went down, the purchaser of the insurance would not be forced to carry as much liability insurance. Their premiums would then go down. The rate of incidence is not likely to change. The only thing that chances is the amount of money a company has to pay for the insurance. The higher the coverage, the higher the premium. The lower the coverage, the lower the premium.

Take medical malpractice as an example. Malpractice insurance costs over 100k a year. You think that doctors would continue to pay over 100k a year in medical malpractice insurance if there was a cap? What happens if the insurance only covers x number of dollars for a suit? Then they go after the doctor personally, right?. You think it is okay to take this doctor for everything they have? Why do you think doctors are leaving their respective field and we now have a shortage? There couldn't possibly be a correlation there?

[BaronDetroit]

No aspiring lawyer should be in favor of tort reform. We are the 'wealth redistributors' of society. Take as much as we can from those with $ and give to those who have nothing. Some old lady in my local newspaper just won a 1.2 M jury verdict against a hospital but apparently she will only get 10% of that because of a cap of some kind.

[ravens9111]

No aspiring lawyer should be in favor of tort reform. We are the 'wealth redistributors' of society. Take as much as we can from those with $ and give to those who have nothing. Some old lady in my local newspaper just won a 1.2 M jury verdict against a hospital but apparently she will only get 10% of that because of a cap of some kind.

Sounds familiar... spread the wealth, redistribution, society, take from those with money and give to those that don't have it... I see how it works now. Thanks for clearing it up. Case closed.

[TheTopBloke]

How do I know it does not? Well, if airline companies increase risk and airline crashes do increase, fewer people will fly that airliner. That will cause the airline companies to remain cautious or they will lose money from less passengers. Also, I am pretty sure the FAA still will enforce the same regs. and regulations as before. That won't change. I find it hard to believe that airline crashes would increase dramatically.

Why would insurance companies lower the standards from airline deaths? I assume you are talking about liability insurance the airline carries. It is set in the insurance premium the airline pays, no? The higher the liability coverage, the higher the premium. If the amount was reduced from $500k to $50k, their premium would go down and result in lower profit to the insurance company, right? The risk of payout is always calculated in premiums (actuaries). No matter what happens, the insurance company will always want to pay less. It doesn't really matter what the amount is.

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

You just got caught in the trap. There is plenty of evidence over several years that no matter how successful the insurance companies are in creating a fascist state, they simply do not carry those savings forward. I'm not really interested in fattening the bottom line. I'm interested in keeping the playing field level. Further, the excuse that there are too many frivolous lawsuits is totally unjustified, and we already have SLAPP for that purpose. So I see no legitimate reasoning for capping awards. And to be a lawyer pursuing the reduction of awards is just plain stupid.

Your fascism analogy is unfounded. But that's fine. You can think that if you like. You say the insurance companies do not carry "those savings forward". How do you really know those savings would not be carried forward? If payouts went down, the purchaser of the insurance would not be forced to carry as much liability insurance. Their premiums would then go down. The rate of incidence is not likely to change. The only thing that chances is the amount of money a company has to pay for the insurance. The higher the coverage, the higher the premium. The lower the coverage, the lower the premium.

Take medical malpractice as an example. Malpractice insurance costs over 100k a year. You think that doctors would continue to pay over 100k a year in medical malpractice insurance if there was a cap? What happens if the insurance only covers x number of dollars for a suit? Then they go after the doctor personally, right?. You think it is okay to take this doctor for everything they have? Why do you think doctors are leaving their respective field and we now have a shortage? There couldn't possibly be a correlation there?

Yes, I do think doctors would continue to pay over 100k per year if there was a cap.

They'll go after the doctor personally anyway, that's why they're there.

Yes, if he's found negligent.

I don't know, perhaps because insurance premiums are too high?

So you want to cap awards based on the assumption the insurance companies are going to reduce rates? That's wishful thinking.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

No aspiring lawyer should be in favor of tort reform. We are the 'wealth redistributors' of society.

[ravens9111]

How do I know it does not? Well, if airline companies increase risk and airline crashes do increase, fewer people will fly that airliner. That will cause the airline companies to remain cautious or they will lose money from less passengers. Also, I am pretty sure the FAA still will enforce the same regs. and regulations as before. That won't change. I find it hard to believe that airline crashes would increase dramatically.

Why would insurance companies lower the standards from airline deaths? I assume you are talking about liability insurance the airline carries. It is set in the insurance premium the airline pays, no? The higher the liability coverage, the higher the premium. If the amount was reduced from $500k to $50k, their premium would go down and result in lower profit to the insurance company, right? The risk of payout is always calculated in premiums (actuaries). No matter what happens, the insurance company will always want to pay less. It doesn't really matter what the amount is.

The question of what one's life is worth is difficult to determine. Should one persons life be worth more because they died in an airplane crash and not in a car accident? Does the person who died in an airplane crash receive a higher award to family members because the airline has more money than an individual who was driving a car? Surely, the airline company has deeper pockets and can afford the big payout. The individual can't, and most small businesses can't either. The whole system is messed up, in my opinion. Why someone gets paid more money for damages because the other party has deeper pockets is unfair. If two injuries that occur are the exact same, and one defendant has 500 million in cash while the other has 1 million in cash, why should the plaintiff get more from the 500 million and less from the 1 million defendant? Shouldn't it be the same regardless who the defendant is and how much money they have?

You just got caught in the trap. There is plenty of evidence over several years that no matter how successful the insurance companies are in creating a fascist state, they simply do not carry those savings forward. I'm not really interested in fattening the bottom line. I'm interested in keeping the playing field level. Further, the excuse that there are too many frivolous lawsuits is totally unjustified, and we already have SLAPP for that purpose. So I see no legitimate reasoning for capping awards. And to be a lawyer pursuing the reduction of awards is just plain stupid.

Your fascism analogy is unfounded. But that's fine. You can think that if you like. You say the insurance companies do not carry "those savings forward". How do you really know those savings would not be carried forward? If payouts went down, the purchaser of the insurance would not be forced to carry as much liability insurance. Their premiums would then go down. The rate of incidence is not likely to change. The only thing that chances is the amount of money a company has to pay for the insurance. The higher the coverage, the higher the premium. The lower the coverage, the lower the premium.

Take medical malpractice as an example. Malpractice insurance costs over 100k a year. You think that doctors would continue to pay over 100k a year in medical malpractice insurance if there was a cap? What happens if the insurance only covers x number of dollars for a suit? Then they go after the doctor personally, right?. You think it is okay to take this doctor for everything they have? Why do you think doctors are leaving their respective field and we now have a shortage? There couldn't possibly be a correlation there?

Yes, I do think doctors would continue to pay over 100k per year if there was a cap.

They'll go after the doctor personally anyway, that's why they're there.

Yes, if he's found negligent.

I don't know, perhaps because insurance premiums are too high?

So you want to cap awards based on the assumption the insurance companies are going to reduce rates? That's wishful thinking.

No I am not suggesting that awards be capped based on the assumption the insurance companies are going to reduce rates. One has nothing to do with the other. I am suggesting that there be caps so companies do not have UNLIMITED liability. Or so awards are not based on the amount of assets a defendant has.