Tort Reform: Documentary Analysis

ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARE EXAMPLES OF ____ TORTS THAT INVOLVE INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON'S BODY.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

Tort reform refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis that basically places limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that can be awarded in personal injury lawsuits. Personally, I definitely agree that tort reform should be passed into law for every state because sometimes the damages that are awarded in lawsuits are too excessive. Moreover, tort reform still allows for the plaintiff to recover damages just not at an excessive and unreasonable amount of damages.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted to a new site on the body, and other medical assistance that reach over $100,000. She and her family tried to reach McDonals to get a settlement for the damages, but was welcomed with denial and lack of cooperation in settlements and coverage for medical expenses, so the family decided to sue the company for gross negligence.

Since about the mid-late 1980’s many states have implemented and enforced statutes to limit tort lawsuits. Tort reform is the political term for redefining tort laws and reducing tort litigation, damages, compensation, and even amounts awarded (Quinn). The reformation of the nation’s tort system, or changing laws throughout a state dealing with injuries to a person or their property have done a lot more harm than good for consumers. While each tort reform law varies depending on the state, they all have one of the following goals in mind: “(1) to make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit, (2) to make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial, (3) to place limits on the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit (Lane).”

I disagree with this decision because Christopher suffered second-degree burns which is more than enough evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee, and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects, and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would have

On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint and named Neven, Nash, Pugh, and Rainone as defendants. Again, Plaintiff never named Cox as a defendant, despite being listed as a defendant for Count VI. Plaintiff did not serve Neven, Nash, and Pugh until May 10, 2017, which is 134 days from the time the Amended Complaint was filed. Defendants Cox and Rainone have yet to be served. Plaintiff will not be able to show good cause as to why service was not completed within 120 days. Furthermore, Plaintiff attempted to make a motion to extend time to serve, but Plaintiff did not file it as required by Eighth Judicial District Court Rules. Plaintiff offered no memorandum of authority and only stated his reasoning for an extension. Pursuant

Hospitals can avoid common law tort systems by adapting a Guidelines Based Systems. These systems will give the Clinic or Hospital click all practice guideline statements to follow. The statements will provide appropriate treatments for illnesses, symptoms and even different types of patients (Kessler, 2011). Such guidelines will help the physician fine the best clinical approach for the patient, thus verging away from malpractice or negligent issues (Kessler, 2011).

As defined Tort reform advocates propose among other things, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. There are common goals for each different tort reform; some of these include

The tort reform battle started in the 1950’s with the insurance industry and their battles. Early on, they realized that they were in charge of the compensations for personal injury victims. This started a PR campaign of “targeting potential jurors through magazine ads.” They tried to attack lawsuits and jurors so they would vote against personal injury cases. Eventually, they moved towards the grassroots campaigns. They campaigned as regular Americans who were fed up with the justice and litigation systems. Today, advocates still fight these battles through the use of PR methods, “misleading reports, lobbying, and manufactured ‘grassroots’ organizations” (History. (2012). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.tortreformtruth.com/about-tort-reform/history/).

The third third of the 20th century was the Golden Era of Canadian Tort Law. Awakening from its slumber during the first two thirds of the century, the Dark Ages of Canadian Tort Law, Canadian tort law experienced a renaissance and rose to triumphant new heights, “arguably better than has been achieved anywhere else in the world1.” Lewis Klar, in his article for the 125th anniversary of the Supreme Court2 opined that there is “little doubt that the Supreme Court of Canada has been the most bold, imaginative and adventuresome high court in the common law world”. At the turn of the century, Canadian tort law was rational, humane, balanced and truly Canadian, reflecting our unique culture and values, a source of pride for all of us engaged in

It is a good post. I enjoyed reading it this week. It is very interesting that the state of West Virginia cannot be made the defendant in any court, not many states do like West Virginia. The federal tort law is very important to all people and the states in the United States that it at least tries to prevent any unfair situation, and benefit to the claimants because the federal tort law is a tool, which provides an incentive to the claimers, if the claimers win the court and gets the benefits from it, and so, every potential injurer is under this law, such as senators, presidents, police officers, government officials, and firefighters (Geest, 2012).

The tort system in America has been a popular topic of being reformed for the past decade. In my opinion, we do not need a tort reform. The main objective for torts are civil wrongs and are used to help parties who have been injured by a second party. This is usually done by shifting monetary losses/values or injunctions to the second party and having them pay the costs or stop what caused the harm to party one. I believe that the current tort system is effective in that we award those who prove their cases with the monetary value they deserve based off of their loss. When people say that we need a tort reform it is usually because they hear of these major headlining cases that seem outrageous such as the infamous 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald 's case. Another reason is that they believe that we should not trust jury trials when it comes to these cases as well. I will discuss several reasons as to why many people believe that we need tort reform and then I will present evidence from readings, notes, and other sources as to why these reasons are not valid.