This is why we need tort reform...

[guido911]

...because of these lawsuits.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1

[cannon_fodder]

This anecdotal evidence is a perfect example of why we do not.  

People always throw out such examples and say SEE, SEE!  Without knowing either the entire facts nor the final outcome.  The McDonald's woman is another perfect examples - look up how bad the burns were on her genitals and how much she ended up actually collecting.  The fact is McDonald's kept their coffee about 50F hotter than anyone else because it was more efficient to do so without regard to safety.  She shuffled away without a sum that would compensate me for third degree burns on my genitals (which one would NOT expect instantly from a cup of coffee).

In this instance, the items being sought are generally NOT compensable.  You cannot get 10 years of rental fees because you dont like the business.  Likewise, without agreement the sentimental value of an item is usually not compensable. It will all wash out and is indeed a silly lawsuit.

There are already procedures in place to deal with such things.  A suit should be thrown out if it has no merit AND/or costs assessed against the plaintiff.  Such measures are seldom used because when they are people complain about a mean old judge taking justice away from the hands of a jury.   They should be used more frequently.

The fact of the matter remains that most cases filed in the US are justified.  Perhaps it could have worked itself out a different way, but litigation is where it ended up.  There is NOT a glut of litigation as some would have you believe - TRIALS ARE ACTUALLY DOWN.  The Tort reform measures that are being offered are gifts to certain interests at the expense of citizens rights - packaged as financial savings.

Usually, when I sell something I get something in return.  Here, I am expected to sell my rights to save doctors money.  No, the rules that are in place now should be enforced before we try to alter the game.  Frivolous law suits should be cast out with expenses and legitimate victims should be fully compensated.  

The suggested measure would do nothing to inhibit frivolous lawsuits, does not guarantee savings for anyone, and would harm real victims by reducing potential awards.  Rights are only as strong as ones ability to enforce them, the more we limit the courts the less we can enforce our rights and less valuable they become.

[guido911]

CF. I do not want to argue with you on this point. If you want to defend the basis of a judge seeking in excess of $60M from a dry cleaners because he could not wear his favorite pants on his first day on the bench feel free. While your at it, defend the prison escapee who sues the prison and the state to recover damages from injuries he sustained during the escape. Here are some other examples:

http://www.cala.org/lawofthemo.html

I see these types of lawsuits all the time (I think you know I am an attorney). Unfortunately, having as the only protection afforded a victim of a frivolous lawsuit is the possibility that a court might sanction that plaintiff is unacceptable.

[cannon_fodder]

If you dont want to argue the point, you should not have posted it.

For every frivolous suite that is filed there are many more than are warranted.  Shall I post to something that lists worthy cases - because there would be many more than your examples.  Setting the system up to prevent abuse at the expense of justice is not acceptable.

Once more time:  

1) The proposed tort reform will not effect frivolous law suits.  Anyone can hire an 'expert' to say anything and get their day in court.  If they dont use the rules to keep them out now, they wont then.

2) It will not save most people money.  It hasnt in Texas or other tort reform states.  If premiums do drop, the difference is pocketed by doctors who arent going to take a pay cut or by insurance companies in higher profit - who arent going to issue consumer refunds.

3) And its at the expense to real victims.  No matter how bad the tragedy or egregious the violation - here's $300,000 for your trouble.  I would not sell my arm for $300K nor is that enough money to make a major hospital ensure it does not happen again.  Likewise, without the prospect of large verdicts much fewer cases will settle and MORE litigation could ensue.

Over all, it will not effectuate the stated purpose and will be harmful to the average citizen.  It may financially benefit those in the medical industry who pay med. mal. insurance and will certainly help insurance companies but probably NOT the average Joe.  

I do not work in the tort bar currently but have in the past for Riggs Abney, likewise I worked on the defense side for Boone Smith and Gibbs Armstrong.  I understand what goes on from the attorney's perspectives on both sides and I do not feel the reform would have done any meaningful good to either bar.  It would have created more hoops for the Tort Bar, but not effected 90% of their cases.

[guido911]

So are you going to defend the judge's $60M lawsuit because of his pants (which was the impetus for this thread) or not?

As for "tort" law, I do work in this area and am speaking from experience. I also am married to one of those professional types who, in your opinion, would be profiteering from tort reform. You have no concept of the costs that are borne by hardworking and dedicated medical professionals in this staste that are passed along to patients and taxpayers. In fact, doctors are leaving Oklahoma for Texas because of tort reform, which ultimately decreases the quality of health care in this state.

http://oksenate.gov/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/pr20070213a.html

But hey, I guess having your day in a court in a state where a former state senator publicly encouraged lawyers throughout the country to file their lawsuits in Oklahoma is a fair exchange for health care.

 As for reform measure, it might be a good idea to actually read the proposed tort reform (approved by the House and Sentate but vetoed) before you comment on its provisions. If you had read it, you would know that the proposed limitations on damages was for NON-ECONOMIC damages only. Your arm was not worth just $300K as you mistakenly stated. In your scenario, all that was limited was pain and suffering, grief, and other speculative particulars.  

[RLitterell]

quote:Unfortunately, having as the only protection afforded a victim of a frivolous lawsuit is the possibility that a court might sanction that plaintiff is unacceptable.

Why? I am not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that if more of these suits were thrown out for lack of merit and all costs being assesed to the plaintiff there would be less of an eagerness to sue. Let's face it, who owns a 60+ million dollar pair of pants anyway. This should have never seen the light of day. Forcing the owners of the dry cleaners now to hire a lawyer to defend them regardless of how much of the suit is compensable. The fact remains that the dry cleaner will be out thousands of dollars to defend itself over an 800.00 pair of slacks. Fox News reported this morning that an offer of $4000.00 was made to the plaintiff to settle. Seems like a handsome sum to me.

*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post

[iplaw]

quote:
*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post

Too bad, Eh?

[sgrizzle]

It seems odd to assume this case will be so easily thrown out when it's A JUDGE who filed the suit?

They should be the first line of defense, not the perpetrator.

[RLitterell]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post

Too bad, Eh?

Yeah, that might solve all the problems with these types of suits. No lawyers, no suits. My dad said once that if one lawyer sets up practice in a small town he (the lawyer) would starve to death writing wills and recording deeds. Let a second lawyer set up in the same small town and both of them will get rich suing each other.[] That just made a lot of sense to me.

** once again, no lawyers were harmed by the production of this post, well maybe some hurt feelings. Hey, they can't sue me for that... right?

[guido911]

I may need to rethink my position on this issue. Apparently Rosie O'Douchebag thinks we need tort reform too:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12472

[cannon_fodder]

Guido:

As per the $60mil pair of pants -
As I mentioned above,

quote:the items being sought are generally NOT compensable. You cannot get 10 years of rental fees because you dont like the business. Likewise, without agreement the sentimental value of an item is usually not compensable. It will all wash out and is indeed a silly lawsuit.

I feel that answered your question in my original post.  

Since you want extrapolation, the lawsuit itself is not frivolous.  The amount requested is what is at odds with logic here.  The man deserves to be compensated for his pants - whatever their actual value is ($100?  $200?).  This suit would not be barred by the proposed Oklahoma Tort reform.  He would have to get an expert to testify that the dry cleaner was negligent when losing the pants... but he would certainly be able to bring suit.

Exchange for Health Care:
There is no evidence that any savings will materialize.  If that should happen, there is no evidence that the savings will be passed on.  If they are, there is no evidence that they will be passed on to consumers.  If they are, there is no evidence how much those savings that may be.  That's a lot of IF's to come to no conclusion.

You love the Texas tort reform so much but there is STILL no evidence that it has aided health care in Texas.  Nor is there evidence that the individual health care recipients (payers) received any benefit.  

For that matter, I have not heard of a single MD who has left OK for Texas because of lower premiums.  While on that subject, there is some evidence that the Tulsa area has a glut of doctors that represses wages.  The average MD only makes $145,000 a year.  They worked hard for that and deserve to keep as much as they can, but many professions have expenses associated with them.  Their compensation reflects that and have no evidence that our quality of health care is harmed by our pursuit of justice.

If anything, the quality is better.  Without the risk of consequences for intentional and malicious acts the quality would for sure go down.  For some reason it is always left out of the debate that the cap would only have an effect on intentional and malicious acts.  Simply negligence already has a punitive cap of $100,000. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1.

And since you brought it up, the price of my arm is indeed limited to $300,000 under the tort reform.  I will be compensated for medical bills, lost wages, and future earning potential.  The actual inherent value of my arm is included in the pain and suffering total (inability to play catch with my boy, fish, etc. are NON ECONOMIC DAMAGES).  Thus, while I will be fully compensated for my actual economic loss, the compensation for actually losing my arm is capped at $300,000.

So... if I offered to pay all your medical bills for the procedure AND offered to make up your current and future lost wages:  would you sell me your right arm for $300,000?  Most people would say no.


as per Rosie:  being subjected to her should be reformed to a tort unto itself.

[rwarn17588]

Guido wrote:

CF. I do not want to argue with you on this point.

<end clip>

Guido, you do this a lot. You post something, and when someone argues something contrary or points out something that makes you uncomfortable, you say you don't want to discuss it.

TulsaNow hosts many vigorous discussions. If you don't have the courage to defend your opinions, perhaps you need to go where you won't be challenged.

[Conan71]

I like my torte in a little round aluminum cup.  Is there really any need to re-form them?

[guido911]

RW:  I do exactly what "a lot". All I was doing was posting an FYI re: a BS lawsuit brought by a JUDGE. Since the issue of tort reform was already recently discussed in this forum, perhaps I should have posted the story in the discussion forum. Oh, I am not uncomfortable taking legal issues head on with anybody on this forum. My only requirement is that if you are going to talk about how bad tort reform is, then you better have AT LEAST read the darn proposed statute. Otherwise, why argue since all you are doing is arguing with someone who is woefully uninformed. And BTW, who asked for your two cents? Do you want take me on in the tort reform debate?

CF--Look at the proposed tort reform statute in its entirety and I will gladly debate it with you just like IP and ALT did separately on the truther stuff. I am interested in hearing the arguments of a lawyer supporting the concept of litigation free for alls. Also, I am interested in hearing you defending the former state senator's open invitation to out of state lawyers to come and sue his constituents and Oklahoma citizens.

I will be back to discuss your points on the impact of tort reform on health care. I will, however, leave you with this little nugget re: effect of reform in Texas:

http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/jan05/tortreform.htm

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

And BTW, who asked for your two cents?

<end clip>

Since you're the one who posted this, that is in essence an invitation for everyone who participates in this forum to weigh in. Don't complain when people do so.