“Lawsuits and the “tort” system are important for several reasons: they help compensate those injured by corporate or professional recklessness; they protect us all by supplying financial incentives to keep corporations from running completely amuck; and they provide a forum where evidence of misconduct can be forced out into the open.”
Source: Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School
PDF Version Of Spotlight: Why are tort lawsuits important?
THE BASICS
-
What does “civil justice” mean?
When you go to the police to get justice because someone has committed a crime against you, you’re seeking criminal justice. A criminal penalty is the outcome. When you sue someone in civil court to seek compensation because someone has caused you harm (see TORT), then you’re seeking civil justice. The civil courts and their fundamental components – judges, juries, lawyers for both sides – all work together ideally to ensure civil justice. -
A tort is harm that a company or a person causes another person either on purpose or because they are negligent. When someone files a lawsuit over a “tort” — with the goal of getting compensated for harm — this is sometimes called a “personal injury lawsuit.”
-
Aren’t these personal injury or “tort” lawsuits flooding the courts?
No. Tort cases make up only 6 percent of the entire civil court caseload and they are decreasing. The National Center for State Courts shows a 21 percent decline in tort filings from 1996 to 2005. Learn more here -
What’s “tort reform”?
“Tort reform” refers to laws that benefit the corporate sector. These laws make it more difficult for injured people to sue in civil court, or limit the power of judges and juries to make decisions in tort cases. Read more about some common ones here -
Won’t “tort reform” stop “frivolous lawsuits”?
Tort reform laws have nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform laws (such a limits on compensation, or “caps”) apply across the board to all cases, not just ones deemed “frivolous.” They apply no matter how much merit a case has, the extent of the misconduct or severity of an injury. Those most hurt by “tort reform” tend to be the most catastrophically injured. -
Is it easy to file a lawsuit?
No. To bring a lawsuit, someone must be a fault, there must be an injury or some harm caused, and there must be facts to support your side of things. Sometimes, all the facts are not known. A lawyer can help find out these facts, but since gathering facts may cost time and money, not every case can go forward even though a claim may be just. That is especially true in states that have enacted “tort reforms,” since many of those laws create unfair legal obstacles preventing legitimate cases from going forward. -
Don’t lawyers have an incentive to file frivolous cases?
No, the opposite is true. People filing lawsuits do not pay hourly fees to lawyers. They pay on a “contingency” basis, which is an important system because it provides injured people with access to an attorney without requiring that they pay fees up front. Only if the case is successful is the attorney paid – from a percentage of what is won, usually 1/3. Therefore, lawyers must be very selective in the cases they take – they cannot afford to take cases they do not believe they can win Learn more about contingency fees hereMoreover, judges throw out frivolous cases and can sanction lawyers who bring them. And as explained above, the contingency fee system acts to screen out baseless lawsuits. Researchers have looked into this, as well. For example, the Harvard School of Public Health studied medical malpractices cases and found no evidence of frivolous cases, stating “[p]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.” Learn more here
-
Does the “contingency fees” system cut down on “frivolous” lawsuits?
Yes. Most law firms are small businesses and like any other small business, they can’t take many financial risks – like taking cases they don’t think they can win. That means they cannot afford to take frivolous lawsuits. -
But isn’t it easy to “win” money in a lawsuit by forcing the other side (usually an insurance company) to settle?
No. Insurance companies do not settle frivolous cases. For example, Duke University Law Professor Neil Vidmar found in his research: “In interviews with liability insurers that I undertook in North Carolina and other states, the most consistent theme from them was: ‘We do not settle frivolous cases!’ The insurers indicated that there are minor exceptions, but their policy on frivolous cases was based on the belief that if they ever begin to settle cases just to make them go away, their credibility will be destroyed and this will encourage more litigation.” -
But aren’t people running to court all the time and filing frivolous lawsuits in hopes of winning a “lottery”?
No. According to the Rand Institute for Civil Justice (partly funded by insurance companies), each year one in six Americans sustains an injury serious enough to cause some economic loss. But only 10 percent file a claim, which includes informal demands and insurance claims. Only two percent file a lawsuit. The study concludes that these statistics are at odds with any notion that we live in an overly litigious society. Learn more here -
Aren’t juries too sympathetic to injured people and give away too much money?
No. While most cases settle, once a case goes to trial, a plaintiff (someone who files a lawsuit) wins only about half the time. That is not because the case was frivolous, but because cases are hard and expensive to win and because juries tend to be much harder on people who sue than is generally believed. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that the median jury award in “tort” cases is only $24,000. Moreover, taking a look at the 75 most populous counties, jury verdicts in these cases are in steep decline: from $71,000 in 1992 to $33,000 in 2005. Learn more here -
But what about that McDonald’s coffee case? Wasn’t that frivolous and didn’t that woman get millions of dollar for spilling hot coffee on herself?
No. The facts of that case are: Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was trying to remove the lid on her coffee when it tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees even though the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees. When Ms. Liebeck was burned by the coffee, McDonald’s coffee had already burned more than 700 people, including infants. Liebeck received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous and willful conduct. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties settled confidentially for less. Learn more here
WHO PAYS?
WHY SHOULD I CARE?
If corporations can’t be sued, does that mean that they’ll provide more jobs or that our economy will improve?
In 2005, the Economic Policy Institute (“EPI”) released a study debunking common myths about the costs of the legal system and its burden on consumers. According to EPI, “There is no historical correlation between the inflated estimates of the costs of the tort system and corporate profits, product quality, productivity, or research and development (R&D) spending. Evidence suggests that the tort system, without the proposed restrictions, has actually been beneficial to the economy in all these areas.” Moreover, says EPI, “significant tort law change would be more likely to slow employment growth than to promote it. Endlessly repeating that so-called ‘tort reform’ will create jobs does not make it true.” http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp157/
WHAT DO CIVIL JUSTICE AND “TORT REFORM” HAVE TO DO WITH THE ISSUE I’M PASSIONATE ABOUT?
Successful civil lawsuits directly respond to the needs of those harmed by civil rights violations by providing financial compensation for losses. Often a lawsuit provides the only effective means to end discrimination. In some cases lawsuits put dangerous entities like hate groups out of business. “Tort reform” laws, which reduce the power and authority of civil juries, weaken a crucial forum for obtaining justice in civil rights cases.Learn more here
Source: | centerjd.org
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Why are tort lawsuits important for Family Court Victims?| centerjd.org […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m impressed, I have to admit. Seldom do I come across a blog
that’s both equally educative and interesting, and without a doubt, you have
hit the nail on the head. The issue is something which too few
men and women are speaking intelligently about.
I’m very happy that I came across this during my search for something relating to this.
LikeLike
Remarkable things here. I am very satisfied to see your article.
Thanks a lot and I am taking a look ahead to contact you.
Will you kindly drop me a mail?
LikeLike