Another misguided Republican bill

[Hometown]

Okay, Let's put a stop to another misguided Republican bill.  SB 507 purports to reform litigation but what it really does is deny working people and the middle classes access to the legal system.  Corporations would love not to have to answer to anyone and Oklahoma Republicans are trying to make that happen.

[Ibanez]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1.     AMENDATORY     76 O.S. 2001, Section 31, is amended to read as follows:
Section 31.  A.  Any volunteer shall be immune from liability in a civil action on the basis of any act or omission of the volunteer resulting in damage or injury if:
1.  The volunteer was acting in good faith and within the scope of the volunteer's official functions and duties for a charitable organization or not-for-profit corporation; and
2.  The damage or injury was not caused by gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct by the volunteer.
B.  In any civil action against a charitable organization or not-for-profit corporation for damages based upon the conduct of a volunteer, the doctrine of respondeat superior shall apply, notwithstanding the immunity granted to the volunteer in subsection A of this section.
C.  Any person who, in good faith and without compensation, or expectation of compensation, donates or loans emergency service equipment to a volunteer shall not be liable for damages resulting from the use of such equipment by the volunteer, except when the donor of the equipment knew or should have known that the equipment was dangerous or faulty in a way which could result in bodily injury, death or damage to property.
D.  Definitions.
1.  For the purposes of this section, the term "volunteer" means a person who enters into a service or undertaking of the person's free will without compensation or expectation of compensation in money or other thing of value in order to provide a service, care, assistance, advice, or other benefit where the person does not offer that type of service, care, assistance, advice or other benefit for sale to the public.
2.  For the purposes of this section, the term "charitable organization" means any benevolent, philanthropic, patriotic, eleemosynary, educational, social, civic, recreational, religious group or association or any other person performing or purporting to perform acts beneficial to the public.
3.  For the purposes of this section, the term "not-for-profit corporation" means a corporation formed for a purpose not involving pecuniary gain to its shareholders or members, paying no dividends or other pecuniary remuneration, directly or indirectly, to its shareholders or members as such, and having no capital stock.
E.  The provisions of this section shall not affect the liability that any person may have which arises from the operation of a motor vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft in rendering the service, care, assistance, advice or other benefit as a volunteer; however, the provisions of this section shall apply to a volunteer who, in the course of his or her duties for the charitable organization or not-for-profit corporation, operates such vehicles to provide transportation services.
F.  The immunity from civil liability provided for by this section shall extend only to the actions taken by a person rendering the service, care, assistance, advice, or other benefit as a volunteer, and does not confer any immunity to any person for actions taken by the volunteer prior to or after the rendering of the service, care, assistance, advice, or other benefit as a volunteer.
G.  This section shall apply to all civil actions filed after the effective date of this act.
SECTION 2.  This act shall become effective November 1, 2007.


Yeah....boy that's some pretty damning stuff. Those dirty Republicans are at it again.

Hey...what's that over there? Look Don...it's another windmill.

[iplaw]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[tim huntzinger]

I disagree with granting blanket immunity to non-profit Board members, which is what this bill looks like.  Too many want to attend one or two meetings a month, put that on their vitae, move on in three years to the next 501-c.  I oppose granting blanket immunity.

[cannon_fodder]

I hate to do this, but I actually agree with him here.  Some of the requirements in the bill will severely limit the Bar and pay lip service to actual problems.

For instance, requiring an expert witness before filing suit?  Gee, ok.  Lets pay Bob and Tom's Expert service to certify our case.  There's an extra $500 out of the victims pocket and nothing accomplished.

$300,000 cap on non-economic damages?  Great.  They remove my farkin' arm and I get $300,000.  They accidental kill my wife and I get $300,000 for my trouble.  That sounds fair.  Add to that, the cap removes the THREAT of high damages and therefor removes the inventive to settle a law suit.

There are very few, if any outrageous damages awarded in the State of Oklahoma that hold up.  Medical Insurance is a small percent of the cost of a hospital or doctor doing business in this state.    Insurance is damn expensive for heavy industry too, but we arent limiting the liability for crane operators or gas truck drivers.  Why do we tell doctors that their mistakes are more excusable?  

Furthermore, I doubt the cost of health care in Tulsa will decline or the quality will increase.  It hasnt helped Texas and no one was willing to predict such a trend here.

For as much disdain as I have for the common man, I would trust a jury pool over the government any day.  That's why the system is in place.  To stop government from being corrupted by any one powerful group in the course of a trial.  Too bad it doesnt work for the legislature who were bought by the Medical Associations and Defense Bar, the Tort Bar and the General Public can't match those pockets.

The better solution would be enforcement of rules already on the book to shift fees to plaintiff's attorneys who pursue frivolous claims.  More intrusive government that takes away the right of the people to have a jury before his peers is not the solution.  We are reducing the roll of the jury to rubber stamping what the legislature determines as a sufficient award.  In spite of the fact that the jury hears all the evidence and has the time to weigh it, Oklahoma apparently knows best.

and no, I dont practice in the TORT Bar and have no desire to do so.  I'm pro business, but not when that stance conflicts with individual liberty.

[guido911]

CF:  Take a look at the entire statute as proposed. There are significant changes coming with this reform if passed. I agree with almost all the provisions, except for modification of the collateral source rule.

1.  As for experts, this is an expense that one will ultimately have to bear (unless it is a res ipsa case)

2.  As for non-economic damages, federal law already limits these amounts in certain cases (i.e. employment discrimination cases). If you look at the statute, the non-eco caps can be lifted. In any case, it is a cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress). Economic damages, i.e. loss wages, are not capped.

More to come on this.

[Double A]

I am with you on this tort deform bill, Hometown. I will fight any bill that seeks to limit my Constitutional right to redress before a jury of my peers.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I am with you on this tort deform bill, Hometown. I will fight any bill that seeks to limit my Constitutional right to redress before a jury of my peers.

Either you or Hometown point out in the REform bill where your "right to redress before a jury" has been taken or where the "middle classes" have had their access to legal system denied. I wish you two knew what the hell you were talking about rather than just spouting Democrat talking points.