Pros And Cons Of Tort Reform

Tort Reform Legislation The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial in certain civil lawsuits. The proponents of tort reform legislation believe that in recent past there have been abuses in the civil justice system that need to be limited. In contrast, the opponents of the legislation believe that access to courts in order to seek remedy when deliberately or negligently harmed is vital for safeguarding individual rights. Opponents also believe that these rights have been under attack by interests of bug businesses over the past few decades. As evident in this seeming controversy, tort reform is associated with various advantages and disadvantages that contribute to differences in opinion. Moreover, there are concerns on whether federal tort reform legislation has gone too far or has been necessary in restraining frivolous and costly lawsuits.
Generally, tort reform law provides a significant function through enabling injured parties to receive compensation.
Nonetheless, critics have constantly argued that some aspects of contemporary tort law encourage various trivial and unfounded lawsuits. The differences in opinion about tort reform are attributed to its advantages and disadvantages and impact. One of the advantages is that it carries out an important function by making it possible for injured parties to receive compensation (Miller, 2010, p.72). Secondly, tort reform lessens the number of lawsuits by helping to ensure that companies and organizations involved in the case are not subjected to additional punitive damages. Third, as a result of the decrease in the number of lawsuits, judges have more time to focus on other cases. The fourth advantage is that tort reform helps in lessening courts’ expenditures because of the decline in the number of personal injury lawsuits or
cases. Despite these advantages, tort reform is also associated with several disadvantages that have contributed to its increased criticism. First, various aspects of the existing tort law can contribute to numerous and unfounded lawsuits that will in turn increase congestion in courts and add unnecessary expenses. This is primarily because damage awards are usually excessive and do not match the actual damage, which encourages plaintiffs to file lawsuits. Secondly, tort law could affect access to courts in order to seek remedy for individual rights that are deliberately or negligently harmed, especially when these rights have been largely attacked by business interests in the past few years. Third, in cases where tort reform lessens lawsuits, the injured party suffers more since the guilty party will not face any disciplinary measure, which contributes to continuous practice negligence. In light of the controversy regarding tort law because of the advantages and disadvantages of torts, the federal government and other state governments have develop various steps toward tort reform, especially initiatives that are geared toward lessening the number of tort cases. There have been concerns and debates on whether the federal tort reform legislation has gone too far or has been vital in preventing frivolous and costly lawsuits. Generally, federal tort reform legislation has been effective in preventing frivolous and costly lawsuits. Tort law has traditionally been associated with the increase of frivolous lawsuits such as the example of McDonald’s coffee case. In this case, Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself and filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s and eventually profited from the lawsuit (Saladoff, 2011). Liebeck took advantage of the tort law in the American legal system to benefit from her illegal actions. This case represents how various people have taken advantage of the system, which necessitated reforms. Federal tort reform legislation has been effective in preventing such incidents by restricting the number of general and punitive damages that can be awarded, limiting the amount lawyers can obtain in contingency fees, and requiring the losing party to cater for legal costs.