Texans For Lawsuit Reform: A Case Study

2. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. Robert Foster, age 17, was a student at the Morehouse Educational Development Center (MEDC), a school for the mentally retarded. He was chosen a member of MEDC 's Special Olympics basketball team. This was a school sanctioned activity, with practice sessions

A class action waiver is essentially a type of document that prevents someone from using a class action lawsuit. This is common among employment contracts, although it can be used for other types of contracts as well. When someone signs this type of waiver, they are essentially removing their right to file a class action lawsuit.

There are two major lawsuits which the main populace has defined as frivolous. One of those cases is the McDonald’s split coffee case. This is the case where the plaintiff spilled her coffee and was rumored to sue McDonald’s for 2.7 million dollars and win. The other’s case is the Pearson dry cleaning case where a man sued Chung Dry Cleaner’s 54 million dollars for losing his pants. The plaintiff won in the McDonald’s Case and the Plaintiff lost in the Dry clearance’s case. In this paper we are going to dissect each case by the facts, the law, the issues, the ethical issues, the defendants preventative

In this essay I will compare and contrast the different legislative agendas of various interest groups involved with the Texas Government. An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group, or special interest) is a collection of members that are determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected. The essay will discuss the four kinds of interest groups, trade, professional, single and public, as well as provide one detailed example of each type. It includes examples from the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Texas AFT, MADD and TexPIRG interest groups, which are just a few of the many groups in existence out, but it provides an idea of what different types of

Tort reform is a push by special interest to limit tort litigation in the U.S. The documentary Hot Coffee, walks us through 4 case studies on the methods used by the Tort reform lobby. Composed of businesses, manufacturers, hospitals, insurance companies and other businesses. Using their money to affect changes to the 7th Amendment statutes:

On June 1, 2016, The US Chamber of Commerce together with 8 other group trades officially filed a lawsuit in the US District Court Northern Texas against DOL and labor Secretary Thomas Perez on a number of grounds. Seeking to overturn DOL new rules mandating financial advisors to apply fiduciary standard of care in dealing with their client’s retirement accounts like the IRAs and 401 (k) retirement plans, the plaintiffs said that this new rule of the US Department of Labor will certainly undermine the interests of clients. However, the fiduciary rule took effect on June 7, 2016 and will be applicable on April 10, 2017 to IRA participants, brokers, investments advisers, as well as the participants’ beneficiaries and representatives.

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/).

3. How could a section 1983 action be brought where an officer in the locker room preparing for off duty accidentally discharged his revolver, striking a custodian? What would be the justification for a lawsuit in this case? The officer was wrong in this accidental discharge. Police are responsible for the fire arm and even if the officer didn’t shoot someone you are supposed to be able to control the fire arm. This was an accident not meant to hurt someone but if you can’t control a gun you shouldn’t be able to carry one. Negligence like this could kill someone on accident. Officers should treat every gun as they are dangerous because like shown in this case they can hurt someone. He could say it was an accident but if I was the custodian

Tort reform is an extremely debatable topic in the political & legal fields. By definition, tort reform refers to, “The proposed changes made in the civil justice system that directly reduces tort litigation or damages.” Generally, when someone mentions tort reform to an everyday normal person who is not familiar with legalese, they don’t have any idea of what the term “tort reform” is. Throughout this, one will understand through the three interviews conducted that two out of three people don’t necessarily understand the full concept of tort reform or have absolutely no idea what it is. One of the most notorious cases that led to the ongoing debate of tort reform is Liebeck v. Mcdonald’s Restaurant. When the case is brought up, one will say, “Isn’t that the lady that burned herself with coffee and then tried to sue for millions of dollars?” People believe they know the details of the case, however one will be able to see, this particular case is often misconstrued. In my personal opinion, after learning and studying the facts of this case, I don’t understand how a human being could be for tort reform after actually learning about the trials and tribulations that certain people in these kinds of cases, especially Stella Liebeck, have to go through.

The next thing I want to address is the injuries the Plaintiff sustained in this wreck. We are not surprised by the injuries he suffered. We believe that the Plaintiff is blessed to simply walk away with only a few broken ribs, a broken collarbone, and a severely sprained ankle. We do not in any way argue the existence or treatment of these injuries. However, we simply do not agree with the Plaintiff’s assessment on the long term impact that these injuries will have on the Plaintiff’s quality of life. During this trial, we expect you to hear that the Plaintiff works as an aircraft technician. We expect you to hear how the Plaintiff’s job requires him to lift heavy machinery weighing over 100 pounds from one area to the next. We expect you will

Throughout the course of this lawsuit, we have attempted to resolve it. Plaintiff’s counsel initially refused to provide us with a demand, stating only that the case value was in the “seven figure” range. After we produced the photos of the stairs with the temporary lights in place, Plaintiff’s counsel called and admitted that this evidence posed a problem for him. He had previously believed his client’s testimony that no lights were present. We informed him that his client’s testimony is laced with numerous lies about everything from the lighting conditions to her past medical history. We also advised we would not schedule our clients for depositions until he provided a reasonable settlement demand. After further consultation with his

Tort reform is a term propagated by companies in the tobacco and asbestos industries vulnerable to legal actions seeking damages for the impacts to their products. Advocates use the terminology to limit the ability and potential damages available to individuals who take legal actions against companies. In 2002, the consumer advocacy organization Center for Justice and Democracy investigated the U.S. "tort reform" and saw that the "rally" was actually a massive national PR effort initiated by the tobacco industry to reduce or eliminate exposure to liability law suits. Concerned by the increasing regularity in which some state attorneys general are hiring personal injury lawyers to pursue lawsuits on behalf of their practicing states, the

Being involved in a lawsuit is often an overwhelming process, both mentally and financially. As a plaintiff, it is possible that you will wait months or even years before your case is fully resolved. In the meantime, medical bills, lost wages from missed work and daily living expenses can create a stressful financial burden.

Litigation services for complex shareholder disputes and employment discrimination issues involving, among others, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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.