Hello:

Right wingers holler about Obama taking their rights away.. But, they support tort reform, and that's a LOSS of rights on a HUMONGOUS scale.

If you're INJURED, you have the RIGHT to sue whoever injured you and get just compensation.. In the law, just compensation means you get EVEN. You DON'T get rewarded. In the main, that's what happens.

Under tort reform, you won't even get EVEN. You'll be CAPPED by law for a much lesser amount. In fact, that's the IDEA of tort reform. It takes money OUT of the pockets of the injured, and puts it in the pockets of the insurance companies, OR your doctor.

If YOU or your loved one gets injured, and needs LIFETIME care, wouldn't YOU like to be able to provide it? Of COURSE you would. So, WHY would you support laws that TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT?

Please don't tell me about the lady who got burned with McDonald's coffee, and filed a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit. Look at her injuries, and tell me it was frivolous.

Hello Ex, Tort reform is necessary in certain cases and it is necessary because the awards haven't addressed the nature of the injury and have been a form of penalty. This isn't about insurance companies protecting their but. They are part of the problem, negotiating settlements more aligned to saving legal costs than fairly providing for care. A system that places a cap on payment for certain forms of damage as opposed to cutting off care is needed

Maybe we think that care givers liability insurance isn't part of the price the customer pays for medical care .

Tort reform is needed.

It makes no sense to unfairly reward a plaintiff with a huge settlement only because the jurors assume a big corporation can afford the settlement. Jury awards should reflect the facts of the case, certainly including lifetime care if justified, but never capriciously because a case is seen as David and Goliath by the jurors.

Fairness should be for both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Tort reform is needed.

It makes no sense to unfairly reward a plaintiff with a huge settlement only because the jurors assume a big corporation can afford the settlement. Jury awards should reflect the facts of the case, certainly including lifetime care if justified, but never capriciously because a case is seen as David and Goliath by the jurors.

Fairness should be for both sides.

---

In reality you don't need jurors in damage cases, a tribunal of experienced judges would be adequate to sift the facts and make appropriate awards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

In reality you don't need jurors in damage cases, a tribunal of experienced judges would be adequate to sift the facts and make appropriate awards

---

I agree. Many cases are too complex for ordinary jurors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I agree. Many cases are too complex for ordinary jurors.

---

Yes the jury system was great in the early days, it curbed the power of local despots, but now, in a more informed society, there are other methods