How It Doesn't Work: Why Tort Reform Hasn't Helped

Tort reform is a hot-button issue in the United States. Proponents of tort reform argue that it is necessary to reduce the number of lawsuits and the amount of damages that are awarded to plaintiffs. They claim that tort reform will make it easier for businesses to operate and will reduce the cost of goods and services for consumers.

Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn't Helped

by Bernard S. Black

4.2 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	6751 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	376 pages

FREE

Opponents of tort reform argue that it will make it more difficult for people who have been injured to seek justice. They claim that tort reform will lead to more dangerous products, more medical errors, and more corporate misconduct.

The debate over tort reform is complex and there is no easy answer. However, it is important to understand the arguments on both sides of the issue before forming an opinion.

What is Tort Reform?

Tort reform is a term used to describe a variety of changes to the civil justice system that are designed to reduce the number of lawsuits and the amount of damages that are awarded to plaintiffs. These changes can include:

• Caps on damages
• Limits on punitive damages
• Elimination of joint and several liability
• Changes to the rules of discovery
• Restrictions on class action lawsuits

Arguments in Favor of Tort Reform

Proponents of tort reform argue that it is necessary to reduce the number of lawsuits and the amount of damages that are awarded to plaintiffs. They claim that the current civil justice system is too expensive and too unpredictable, and that it is making it difficult for businesses to operate and for consumers to afford goods and services.

Proponents of tort reform also argue that the current system is unfair to defendants. They claim that plaintiffs are often able to win large settlements even when they have not suffered serious injuries. They also claim that defendants are often forced to settle cases even when they are not liable, because the cost of defending a lawsuit is too high.

Arguments Against Tort Reform

Opponents of tort reform argue that it will make it more difficult for people who have been injured to seek justice. They claim that tort reform will lead to more dangerous products, more medical errors, and more corporate misconduct.

Opponents of tort reform also argue that it will disproportionately harm the poor and the middle class. They claim that wealthy defendants will be able to afford to pay for good lawyers and experts, while poor and middle-class plaintiffs will be forced to settle for less.

The Impact of Tort Reform

The impact of tort reform on the American legal system is complex and still being debated. However, there is some evidence that tort reform has led to a decrease in the number of lawsuits and the amount of damages that are awarded to plaintiffs. For example, a study by the RAND Corporation found that tort reform in California led to a 25% decrease in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits and a 40% decrease in the amount of damages that were awarded to plaintiffs.

However, there is also evidence that tort reform has had some negative consequences. For example, a study by the Center for Justice and Democracy found that tort reform in Texas led to an increase in the number of deaths from medical malpractice.

The debate over tort reform is complex and there is no easy answer. However, it is important to understand the arguments

Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn't Helped

by Bernard S. Black

4.2 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	6751 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	376 pages

FREE