The tort reform has been around for a while. In the United States, it began in the 1950’s. This began with the insurance companies pursuing an anti-lawsuit campaign.
Tort reform reached a fevered pitch in the 1980’s. This is when these reforms became political in nature at state legislatures and in Washington D.C. Lobbyists became involved pushing the agendas of their various clients’ pro or against tort reform.
While each tort reform law is different, they generally fall into the following categories:
- Laws that make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit.
- Laws that make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial.
- Laws that place limits on the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit.
These laws take different forms such as statute of limitations, limitations on economic and non-economic (limited tort threshold) damages and restrictions on punitive damages awards, to name a few.
Advocates of tort reform argue that there are too many lawsuits that are frivolous that are filed that put a strain on an already burdened justice system. These cases also raise overall costs for products, services and insurance.
Opponents argue that tort reforms restrict your legal right to file a lawsuit. With the restriction there is no incentive on companies to improve their products or services. Companies would not strive to make their products or services safe. These laws also unfairly protect companies over individuals who have been injured and need to be fairly compensated.
These are difficult issues to say the least. Finding the right line between where to restrict and where not to restrict is not easy. This blog was not drafted to provide an answer but only to raise some of the issues involved and why one would care regardless of which side of tort reform issue you support.