The tort reform movement’s failure to launch1

By John Anthony Concepcion
For some years now, a debate has been occasionally distracting this country on whether or not reforms should be introduced in our civil law system, particularly in the area of torts. The discussion was put in motion by what many call as the tort reform movement, which had been met with an equally strong opposition from those who advocate the preservation of the status quo.

For the benefit of those who do not have an idea of what "tort" means, it has been legally defined as "a negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute" (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm). It came from the French legal term "avoir tort," which literally means, "to have wronged."

It pertains to a wrongful act that causes harm to a person’s body, reputation and in some cases, property. The most common form of liability arising from a breach of the law on torts is that of personal injury.

The primary objective of a case on torts is to compensate, remedy and indemnify the victim of the loss or injury he or she suffered because of an intentional or negligent act.

The crux of the tort reform movement is in its description of tort cases as "frivolous lawsuits" which tend to frustrate the administration of justice by clogging the courts with baseless claims in pursuit of monetary gains.

As an indirect effect, tort reform advocates say it slows down economic growth because the big business companies that are the subject of these suits spend millions of dollars in settlements on practically unfounded claims. It has been further argued that court lawyers get an unusually large share in these settlements. (For more information on the tort reform movement, visit the website of the American Tort Reform Association at http://www.atra.org)

In order to supposedly change this state of affairs, supporters of tort reform propose amendments to the law on torts such as, but not limited to, changes in the products liability law; abolition of the solitary liability rule; and to put limitations on the liabilities for medical malpractice, punitive damages and non-economic damages.

Objectively speaking, the issues raised by pro-reform advocates and the ends they seek to achieve are quite sensible and proper. However, the means may not be as palatable to many as they hope it is, and it ends up as just another wrong way to fix a malady.

If the tort reforms being proposed and its advocates were to be taken at face value, it would appear that they are in favor of those sued on a tort case. It is like taking the advantage away from those injured by the negligence or acts of the supposed guilty parties and the battlefield becomes unequal.

If the intention is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, then the proper way to minimize such suits is to institute changes in the judicial system in order to weed out the frivolous claims from the legitimate ones. In fact, the proposals of the tort reform movement operate as a carte blanche that will affect even the claims of legitimate victims.

Our law firm's Los Angeles Attorneys are also expert Los Angeles Court Lawyers for various lawsuits involving Personal Injury, Employment, Business and Social Security Disability issues.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com