Tort Refrom — #6

Post #6 by zigzag

Source Forum	Tort Refrom — #6
Category	Troubleshooting
Post Date	Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 22:10
Original URL	https://web.archive.org/web/20050523071304/https://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=154697

Post

Quote:

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not sure we'll see lowered medical bills from this. We might, since the cost of malpractice insurance may decrease, but this isn't where most of the problem lies anyway (for that, you'll have to address the drug companies).

The way I see it, the best way to achieve tort reform in such a manner as to reduce frivolous lawsuits would be a simple redo on the rules concerning rewards. Namely, as follows:
Compensatory damages, if awarded, go directly to the defendant.
A portion of any punitive damages imposed will go toward paying court costs and legal fees for both sides. Because of this, punitive damages may not be less than what would be required to pay these fees. There is no upper limit on punitive damages, however...
Once enough has been taken out of the punitive damages to pay court costs, any remainder will go not to the defendant, but to the state which has jurisdiction (or the federal government if no state has jurisdiction), where ideally it will be earmarked for some purpose relevant to the case.
The idea behind this is to bring the idea of a lawsuit back to its original purpose: namely, to be able to bring the force of law to fair compensation, not as a relatively quick way to make a few million bucks because you spilled coffee in your lap. At the same time, it retains the concept of punitive damages, which do serve a useful purpose, but it does so in such a way that it is not as easy to abuse.

I think by defendant (the party being sued) you really mean plaintiff (the party suing).

I'll have to read the case before drawing any conclusions. The whole point of punitive damages is to punish the defendant and deter the obnoxious behavior. If you place too many limitations on that, it could become meaningless. Of course, some states don't allow punitive damages in the first place, so the point is often moot.

I think you make a good point, though - if punitive damages are to be allowed, they should not necessarily result in a windfall to the plaintiffs and their lawyers (assuming that the plaintiffs and their lawyers have been fairly compensated). Apply the punitive damage funds to some higher purpose.