The controversy around tort reform has turned into a two-sided debate between citizens and corporates. With the examination of various cases in recent years, it is clear that the effects of tort reform have proven to be negative for both sides. This issue continues to exist today, as public relations and legislature show a clear difference in opinion. In the event that tort reform occurs, victims and plaintiffs will be prevented from being fully replenished from the harm and negativity that they suffered, making this process of the civil justice system unfair.
In the justice system, there are two forms of law: criminal law, and civil law. The most well known form of law is probably criminal law. Criminal law is where the government (prosecutor) fights a defendant regarding a crime that may or may not have been committed. Contrary to this, civil law has a plaintiff and a defendant who fight over a tort. As stated in the dictionary, a tort is “a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability”. In hindsence, a tort correlates to that of a crime in a criminal case.
Tort reform refers to the passing legislature or when a court issues a ruling that limits in some way the rights of an injured person to seek compensation from the person who caused the accident (“The Problems…Reform”). Tort reform also includes subtopics such as public relations campaign, caps on damages, judicial elections, and mandatory arbitration. Lawmakers across the United States have been heavily involved with tort reform since the 1950s, and it has only grown in popularity since then. Ex-president George W. Bush urged Congress to make reform in 2005 and brought tort reform to the table like no other president.
The damages that are often referred to in civil lawsuits are economic damages and non-economic damages. An economic damage is any cost that is a result of the defendant’s actions. For example, medical bills or money to repair things. Non-economic damages refer to emotional stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other impacts not related to money. A cap on damages “limits the amount of non-economic damage compensation that can be awarded to a plaintiff” (US Legal Inc).
Caps on damages are the most common practice of tort reform. In New Mexico, Susan Seibert says that she was hospitalized for more than nine months because of a doctor messing up during her gynecological procedure. After suing, she was supposed to receive $2.6 million in damages, which was then reduced to $600,000 because of a cap on damages. Seibert still suffers from excessive amounts of debt as a result of not being given the proper amount of money that she deserved. Caps on damages highly impacts the plaintiffs in a case. As priorly mentioned, plaintiffs sue because they need money in order to fully recover from the hardship in which they endured as a result of the defendants actions.
A type of tort reform that is not as well known is specialized medical courts. Currently, all medical malpractice courts have juries that have little to no background regarding medical information. This has been working very well because it means that an unbiased verdict is decided. However, the organization Common Good is trying to pass the creation of special medical courts. In this, the jury and judge will be trained medical professionals who will deeply evaluate the case. Advocates for this court feel that people will be better compensated for what they really deserve. However, the majority of the opinions on this court are against the idea of ths. The most concluded opinion of those who oppose this new system believe that it would put the patients at a disadvantage. It is more likely that the trained medical judges and juries will side with the doctor/surgeon/defendant than siding with the plaintiff. They believe that the most fair and efficient way to judge medical malpractice cases would be to use the existing civil justice system. One of the most famous medical malpractice cases involving Dana Carvey was ended in a settlement, but could have been much worse for Carvery if the judge and jury had been medical professionals. Carvey was receiving a double bypass and had a surgeon that operated on the wrong artery. In the event that this case went to a medical court, it is easily predictable that the verdict would have been that the doctor made a “just” mistake. The jury would have said that this mistake was nothing that was easily preventable, and it was something that could have been assumed as a risk going into the surgery. However, this case did not go to court, rather, it ended in a $7.5 million settlement.
Another form of tort reform is mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration, as said in the article, “Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts”, is “a contract clause that prevents a conflict from going to a judicial court”. This has affected many employers who have experienced sexual harassment, stealing of wages, racial discrimination, and more. Often times, “employees signed so-called mandatory arbitration agreements that are the new normal in American workplaces” (Campbell). These agreements are found under stacks of thousands of papers that have to be signed throughout the hiring process. The manager will force the new employee to sign these documents. Most of the time, these documents will not be called “Mandatory Arbitration Agreement”, rather, they could be called legalese names like “Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement” (Campbell). “Between employee and employer, this means that any conflict must be solved through arbitration” (“Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts”). When a conflict is solved through arbitration, “neutral arbiters” go through the evidence that the company/client present, and those arbiters decide what they think the just outcome should be, whether that is money, loss of a job, and more. This decision is known to be called the arbitration award.
A place where the effects of mandatory arbitration can be seen is the #MeToo movement. With the rise of this moment, more and more women have been coming out about their experiences with sexual harassment in the workplace. These women are then encouraged to fight against their harasser. Ultimately, many of these woman find out that they are not allowed to sue because of the mandatory arbitration agreements that they signed during the process of being hired into the job. In fact, Debra S. Katz wrote an article for The Washington Post called “30 million women can’t sue their employer over harassment”, proving how widespread the issue is. Evidently, this form of tort reform ruins the lives of over 30 million people annually. These woman could be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, truma, and more from their experiences with sexual harassment. In the event that this form of tort reform is not banished, more and more woman will be suffering from mandatory arbitration.
By limiting the amount of money and reparations that a defendant will have to pay a plaintiff, tort reforms benefit major corporations. However, on the opposite side of this, the plaintiff suffers extremely from these limitations. In many cases, a plaintiff will be suing because they need the money to recover fully from the event that took place. For example, in the documentary “Hot Coffee”, many tort cases were discussed. Throughout the cases, there were occurrences in which the plaintiff suffered from the current regulations regarding caps, mandatory arbitration, and more. Tort reform would further exacerbate the negatives of modern day civil court cases.
Groups such as the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and Citizens Against Law Abuse (CALA) have also been active in fighting for tort reform. Along with these suspicions, other issues with tort reform such as the fairness behind caps on damages have exposed inequity in the civil justice system. Supporters of tort reform have been rallying for a common goal: to limit the ability of citizens to take advantage of the litigation process to protect businesses and companies.
Victims and plaintiffs will be prevented from receiving the reparations that they deserve as a result of hardship, negativity, and suffrage from the defendant’s actions in the event that tort reform occurs. Caps on damages, special medical malpractice courts, and mandatory arbitration are just a few of the negative impacts that tort reform will allow. Victims and plaintiffs sue the defendant to be able to receive the full compensation that they deserve. It is hard enough as it is to fight against these major corporations, and tort reform would further exacerbate that. Americans have the right to a fair trial, and the implication of tort reform would take away that constitutionally given right. It is essential that Americans continue to fight against tort reform, as you never know if you may become the next victim.
2019-1-6-1546809813