Tort Reform
Posted by
John RuddMay 30, 2007 4:58 PMTags:
None
Proponents of tort-reform would have you believe the debate is about frivolous lawsuits. It's really about corporate responsibility and who, if anyone, will be held accountable when American consumers are defrauded, injured or killed as a result of someone else's negligence.
Big businesses continue to finance a massive public relations effort lobbying legislators for more tort-reform measures. Corporations say they need protection from lawsuits, but they're really looking for protection from the people they hurt.
Advocates of tort-reform may have a lot of money, but they don't have a monopoly on the truth. Tort-reform legislation undermines a consumer's right to a trial by jury. Tort-reform may sound good - until you're the victim.
Placing limits on damages makes the cost of negligence affordable and predictable. Such action requires the Federal and/or State Constitutions be changed. Before changing the laws that protect us from those with enormous financial and political power, shouldn't we ask some questions?
Do consumers want legislators limiting our ability to go to an attorney? That's what happens with caps on damages. Do consumers really want limits on the ability to collect evidence against those whose negligence has caused them harm? That's what happens with mandatory arbitration.
When legislators restrict your constitutional protections, they've shifted the scales of justice so the process can never be fair. Most people believe in getting their money's worth in a deal, but we aren't getting a fair deal when it comes to Constitutional reform disguised as tort-reform.