30 Facts About Tort reform

Tort reform refers to changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive.

Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

Tort reform actions are civil claims for actions that cause a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.

Tort reform advocates argue that by limiting the threat of frivolous lawsuits, the medical industry would migrate away from practising defensive medicine.

In Texas, tort reform measures have imposed a requirement in medical malpractice cases that only a physician practising or teaching in the same specialty as the defendant can serve as an expert witness in the matter.

Related searches

Proponents of tort reform argue that liability serves to increase the cost of goods for customers and that it serves to encourage regulation through litigation.

Opponents of tort reform argue that it would negatively impact public safety.

Proponents of tort reform argue that the success of that system in guaranteeing compensation where the tort system would not is an indication that tort law is inefficient at securing compensation for victims.

One rationale for tort reform is the purported ineffectiveness of tort law in securing equal compensation.

Tort reform still argued that the tort system should be scrapped.

An additional rationale for tort reform is the ability of plaintiff's attorneys to use the discovery process of common law jurisdictions to impose costs on defendants in order to force settlements in unmeritorious cases to avoid the cost and inconvenience of discovery.

Proponents of tort reform argue that the open-ended discovery process of common law jurisdictions enables plaintiffs arguing in bad faith to initiate frivolous tort lawsuits and coerce defendants into agreeing to legal settlements in otherwise unmeritorious actions.

Opponents of tort reform argue that summary judgment in such cases adequately addresses those issues.

Some advocates of tort reform complain of regulation through litigation, the idea that litigation is being used to achieve regulatory ends that advocates would not be able to achieve through the democratic process.

One type of procedural Tort reform is to reduce the time to sue—the statute of limitations of actions.

Opponents of tort reform contend that the elimination of the rule would under-compensate people who had the misfortune to be hurt by more than one person, if at least one of the defendants does not have the financial means to pay his or her share of proportionate liability.

In general, tort reform advocates contend that too many of the over 15 million lawsuits filed in the United States each year are "frivolous" lawsuits.

US tort reform advocates propose, among other things, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages.

Opponents of tort reform argue that reformers have misstated the existence of any real factual issue and criticise tort reform as disguised corporate welfare.

Tort reform advocates argue that the present tort system is too expensive, that meritless lawsuits clog up the courts, that per capita tort costs vary significantly from state to state, and that trial attorneys too often receive an overly large percentage of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs in tort cases.

Advocates of tort reform complain of unconstitutional regulation caused by litigation, and that litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass.

Tort reform is proposed as one solution to rapidly increasing health care costs in the United States.

Reform of defamation torts, contrary to the general assumption that tort reform is a primarily Republican or conservative issue, is a popular cause among Democrats and liberals more generally who are concerned with lawsuits brought by wealthy corporations and individuals against critics.

Critics of tort reform contend that the real purpose of the proposed changes is to shield businesses, especially large corporations, from having to pay just compensation to consumers, patients and clients for damages incurred from fraud, negligence, medical malpractice or other legitimate tort claims.

Tort reform supporters argue that this precisely describes the problem: lawsuits over socially beneficial practices increase the costs of those practices, and thus improperly deter innovation and other economically desirable activity.

Related searches

Tort reform advocates cite a 1990 study of auto safety improvements by Harvard University professor John D Graham for a conference at the Brookings Institution found that.

The only tort reform effect that proved robust was a negative effect of collateral source reform on black infant mortality.

Tort reform advocates, including Paul Offit, argue that litigation has driven from the US marketplace many useful and safe medical advances, including Bendectin and vaccines for Lyme disease and Group B Streptococcal disease, which kills one hundred infants per year.

Some supporters of tort reform posit that reforms can significantly reduce the costs of doing business, thus benefiting consumers and the public in the long run.

Critics of tort reform contend that the real purpose of the proposed changes is to shield businesses, especially large corporations, from having to pay just compensation to consumers, patients and clients for the harm incurred from fraud, negligence, medical malpractice, product liability or other legitimate tort claims.