TomPaine.com has a nice article, excerpted below, on the hypocrisy of those advocating for “tort reform”. The article gives real life examples of how the biggest proponents of tort reform have used the legal system to 1) teach companies a lesson and 2) get a large amount of compensation for those they care about who were injured by someone’s negligence. And yet these same people want to restrict the right of the common people to do what they did, almost certainly because their corporate supports want the reform meaures (or else those supporteres will spend their money with someone who WILL play ball).

I don’t write much about tort reform, despite being a lawyer and interested in the tort reform debate.

Probably the main reason I haven’t written much about it is that I’m so personally interested in the outcome that I would have even less credibility on the issue than I ordinarily have.

Without getting too detailed, here are the main points I’d like to make regarding tort reform:

• Tort reform is not neccessary and hurts the common people’s interests, despite what the Corporate Interests (thru the Republican spinwits) tell them. Frivolous lawsuits are ALREADY banned and those who bring them are PUNISHED. All lawyers know that frivolous cases can result in sanctioning, even the Republican lawyers in the US Senate who advocate for tort reform because it is good politics. If someone files a frivolous case, a case without reasonable good faith basis, the law of every jurisdication provides that the bringer of the case can be “sanctioned” by the court. Fear of litigation causes the big corporate interests to be more careful. If we take away the fear of litigation, we will enjoy less safe products and less compensation for legitimate injuries.
• Insurance costs will not go down because tort reform occurs. That’s one of the Big Lies of the Corporate Interests and their duped Republican spinwits.
• Doctors do not leave states in order to move to other states where tort reform has been passed. If you think doctors would uproot their lives and their families, rather then raise fees to cover increased insurance costs, you’re just nuts. Some doctors might change the nature of their practices over time, for many reasons, just like lawyers do.
• We already have boatloads of tort reform, even without damage caps. 1) Frivolous lawsuits are already banned and violators are punished. 2) Judges and appellate courts already have the power, and use it, to reduce damage awards that seem unfairly high.
• Tort reform is merely a transfer of power away from common citizens sitting on juries over to the big corporate interests who are only concerned with their stock prices and bonuses. Those who get large compensation awards from juries have PROVEN their entitlement - tort reform is therefore just a way for corporate interests to overrule juries of our peers. Juries are YOU AND ME. Tort reform takes away the power of the PEOPLE to decide how much is enough and who needs to be punished to deter further wrongdoing.

One day I might flesh out this Post and include actual facts to support the pure opinions I stated above.

In the meantime, take a look at the TomPaine.com article excerpted below for some real facts.

TomPaine.com - The Hypocrites Of Tort Reform
Advocates Who Changed Their Tunes

Emily Gottlieb is the deputy director of the Center for Justice & Democracy.

No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in the “tort reform” movement. Take a look at the record of a host of lawmakers, lobbyists and even journalists who complain about lawsuits and argue that the rights of injured consumers to go to court should be scaled back because we are too “litigious.”

When they or family members are hurt and need compensation for their own injuries, often minor ones, these same individuals do not hesitate to use the courts to obtain compensation, to right a wrong, to hold a wrongdoer accountable or to obtain justice. The same is true for corporations that have funded the “tort reform” movement. These companies support efforts to immunize themselves from liability for harming consumers. But when these same companies believe they have been wronged by a business competitor, they are the first to sue.

In this report we take a look at the cases of several proponents of tort restrictions who do not “practice what they preach.” We examine individuals who have sued sometimes for millions of dollars while at the same time championing damage caps and other severe liability restrictions for others. We also look at corporate litigants who have lent financial or other support to groups like the American Tort Reform Association, the Manhattan Institute and state business coalitions like New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform.

Notably, tort restrictions advocated by these organizations virtually never limit the rights of corporations to sue business competitors for commercial losses. This list is by no means exhaustive but merely representative of businesses and other “tort reformers” who say one thing but do another when it comes to the civil justice system.

Individual Hypocrites

. . .

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers’ rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, “We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do.”

But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum supported his wife’s medical malpractice lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000.