is code for GOP speak which means make it hard for normal people to sue and limit the judgements when they due.
It is a big corporate give back for them.
On top of that they want to remove all safeguards that might protect people in the first place so they don't need to sue.

It is pure RW agenda.

Personal injury lawyers representing plaintiffs lean Dem.

Thank you.

reform, I counter that what we need is insurance reform.

Greedy assholes don't like paying for malpractice insurance.

to let responsible parties off the hook by limiting award amounts. The responsible parties are the corporations. Texas has instituted tort reform and it has devastated people who have had claims.

Democratic candidates almost universally oppose it. That's why it's not mentioned much. I assume the consensus of DUers reflect that.

I guess that I was speaking more of frivolous lawsuits that drive up the costs for average
Americans at the expense of rewarding a few privileged 1% attorneys.

Perhaps you can offer an example.

"Hot Coffee".

It aired originally on HBO.

I think it would change your mind.

I can not find the full documentary on YouTube, but

there are many clips from the movie available on YouTube.

It follows 4 different cases.

The McDonald's coffee case is one of those 4.

and told me how it was misrepresented by corporate media.

I say No to tort reform

No to tort reform.

"Hot Coffee" was a great documentary.

The media really carried the water for McDonald's.

The elderly ladies injuries were horrific.

By definition, if a plaintiff wins her lawsuit, as Ms. Liebeck did, the lawsuit isn’t frivolous. A jury of citizens heard and considered all the evidence, and returned a verdict against McDonald’s, as well as awarding punitive damages against McDonald’s. The evidence at the trial proved that McDonald's had been on notice for years that its coffee was too hot. Several plaintiffs who had been scalded by their coffee had successfully sued for damages, and McDonald’s insisted at the Liebeck trial that it had no idea it was serving coffee capable of inflicting third degree burns and fusing a woman’s nylons to her thighs. The jury did not find that credible.

McDonald's lost that suit because it lied to the public, it lied to the court, it lied to the jury, and it was civilly liable for the serious injury it inflicted on Ms. Liebeck.

Why, because you believe the propaganda you've heard?

For a start, check this on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

I wonder what gave you the impression that I was a girl.

That I was corresponding with the other day who has a similar handle...I thought you
were her. My apologies.

Wow, I've had this particular name from different sites, circa 1999.

This is one of those stories that is only partially true that the RW uses to justify tort "reform".

The media and radio haters completely misrepresented that case. The injured woman (a passenger in a stopped car) got 3rd degree burns because McDonalds was using extremely hot water so they could get more coffee from it. They had already received about 900 burn complaints when this case was filed.

recommended below in this subthread.

The victim suffered severe burns as described in that documentary

major corporate interests by limiting damage awards. So, you see, Republicans would like that. That's what is meant by "tort reform" in general. Limiting awards for things like malpractice or product liability benefits only one side of the equation.

It's not a thing that is supported by most liberals, frankly.

wouldn't those right wing lawyers be limiting their own earning potential?

background, you see. It's all part of the same equation.

Their income is not based on winning or losing cases.

fucking corporations.

Tort reform is like entitlement reform, it's about screwing the populace.

but you ask about support for tort reform, it's a GOP thing pure and simple.

Just because there are a few pro-life Dems doesn't mean Dems support abortion restriction.

they didn't see you as asking an innocent question, but rather advocating for tort reform. So responded in kind.
It really isn't a subject Dems deal with except to stop it.
Think about asking if any of the Dem candidates are talking about "religious liberty" it's that sort of thing.

I've been hammered for asking naive questions here. Intent isn't always clear and people have their guard up for troll like post.

Under the guise of "educating". Take it with a grain of salt. There's lots of info you can learn here from awesome posters.

it's a minor part of the picture and overshadowed by the larger fraud by the corporations.

Tort reform. Education reform. Reform school. Reform Party. And so on.

thanks to repukes and the insurance lobby.

I do not know the position of the candidates.

If you get that information, will you please post it ???

I doubt that it will be addressed. I had no idea that this was such a partisan issue.

The vast majority of lawsuits are handled by state courts rather than federal ones.

Unless the case has federal jurisdiction.

suing too much is the problem?

Should there be a test before you are allowed to file, who decides?

Do you REALLY think that is the problem??

This is a rightwing talking point, like death tax

dear god


I read a very clear rightwing talking point on DU and I respond, and I am a stalker?

nope, nobody is buying that bullshit

who file lawsuits with no legal or factual basis. These rules are generally similar to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which says, in part:

It was designed (or rationalized to the voters) as a way to keep medical costs down. It failed. Since tort reform, many patients have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said.

Oddly enough, TX Gov. Greg Abbott who received a 5.8 million dollar payout (in addition to receiving a monthly stipend from the settlement for the rest of his life) fully supports tort reform in Texas.

(The Medical Malpractice Myth, Tom Baker, prof. of health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania)

The standard legislation does nothing to address or protect malpractice insurance premiums paid by Dr.s. Jeb got smacked in face by this when he was Governor in Florida.

and it's a STATE matter. This is MY opinion; haven't taken a poll of DU.

It's a way for the powerful to convince the less powerful to give up even more of their power. "We the people" ARE the court system. We are the juries. If you support tort reform, you're basically saying "I can't trust myself to make the right decision" if I'm on a jury. People joke about getting out of jury duty and joke that juries are filled with people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Then, they complain when a jury they thought they were too good to serve on makes a decision they disagree with. The best "tort reform" is people participating in the process.

Ever notice that people who cry "tort reform" seem to have very little problem with the death penalty? They are sooo concerned that some big company might have to pay out too much money because they think jurors are too incompetent to make those decisions but they have no problem letting those same jurors decide if someone lives or dies.

He used to be a lawyer in Houston. He was out jogging one day and a tree fell on him in West University Place (rich suburb near Rice University). The tree caused him to be permanently paralyzed and in a wheelchair. He sued the property owner and won $10.5 million in damages. He lives off that settlement now.

He's in favor of tort reform, restricting amounts of damages other people can sue for; for others but not for himself. Goddamn hypocrite. I saw him wheeling around the Houston courthouse as a lawyer and later as a civil district judge.

Greg is not a nice person

now FUCK THE REST OF YOU."

The Republican mantra.

Litigation costs have not gone down and plaintiffs with injuries are being denied recoveries. Tort reform was a gimmick designed to lessen the power of plaintiff lawyer and it has worked to some degree but at the expense of victims of negligence and product defects

at least as the corporatists would implement it.

There are plenty of mechanisms in which openly deficient or bogus claims can be weeded efficiently from the system - Rule 12 motions, motions for declaratory or summary judgment, etc., eliminate the truly meritless claims from the system quite well. Any litigation that survives those motions has some merit 90% of the time.

It's just another bogus ruse to let capital do as it pleases and never he held accountable for the consequences of its actions. Which means it is probably inevitable.

I once had the great pleasure of sitting in a federal courtroom watching a big firm smartass in a thousand-dollar suit get a Rule 11 sanction handed to him.

Try explaining that one to the corporation that is paying you $750 or more per hour.

Judges tend to hand those out with a little extra "advice" to the lawyer in question, too.

Motions for summary judgment are simple. They act like there are no remedies available for "vexatious or frivolous litigation".

What happens is that the wrongdoers don't pay for these injured parties. The taxpayers pay for the injured and disabled people.