Have you ever seen a commercial for mesothelioma victims, saying that billions of dollars have been set aside for those injured by asbestos? That you only need to call the number on your screen to receive your compensation? Or how about the ones for transvaginal mesh implants, Xarelto, or men developing gynecomastia after taking ARVs? These are all tort lawsuits that have been/are being tried in court to punish companies for making faulty products. This seems fair, doesn’t it? It is, don’t get me wrong, but like every good thing it can be taken too far. Let me give you an example. Onder Law Firm of Webster Groves of Missouri came across some cases of baby powder causing ovarian cancer. They took these lawsuits and ran with them. They made …show more content…
Now is the time for reform before prices on all products rise for insurance, before companies go bankrupt, and before we suffer twice for the things we buy-once when we buy the expensive product due to the company's need to pay for insurance and again when it causes an unforeseen harm. Tort lawsuits trace their roots all the way back to medieval times. Back then there was no clear distinction between criminal lawsuits and tort lawsuits, but there were tort cases. A tort lawsuit was first considered any case dealing with trespassing on someone's property, bodily injuring someone, taking a hostage, or damaging someone else's property (Aliprandini and Walter 1). As said, really no clear distinction between criminal and tort lawsuits. Later, in the late 1900’s, tort evolved into more personal injury and wrongful death cases. One case that really kicked off and defined this new evolution was the Goodman v. Yuba Power Products trial in 1963. Yuba produced a tool called the Shopsmith, a saw, drill, and wood lathe all in one. This tool, even when assembled correctly, caused injuries so it was brought to court. The plaintiffs (or the ones bringing the case to court) won large damages to compensate for the injuries caused, This case was the precedent to what we recognize as tort law (Aliprandini and Walter
In the article “Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by tort laws.” The author Becca Aaronson, explains that sometimes tort laws may not feel fair. Connie Spears is just an ordinary woman who went to the Emergency because she felt some pain in her legs which she told the hospital she is known to have blood clots but, after being checked by the doctors they sent her home with a minor diagnoses. Just a short few days later she ended up in a different hospital with serious illness that caused her to loose both of her legs. She then filed a medical malpractice law suit but, she had to produce adequate expert reports within 120 days of filing their cases or she will be ordered to pay the defendants court fees. Connie Spears argues that
Tort law enables citizens to seek reimbursement for loss and or suffering from conduct that would be deemed dangerous or unreasonable of others (3). Tort law is non criminal and is dealt with in our civil judicial system. The categories of Tort Law include intentional tort, negligence and strict liability.
In Canada, when someone feels they have been wronged or injured by another, they can seek compensation through the courts. This area of law is known as tort law which examines conduct and consequences (Lin, 2010, p. 4). Tort law does not rely on promises or contracts. It is an area of law that examines the obligations and duties one party has to another. In relation to business and professionals, tort law aims to change the behavior of producers to prevent future harm or loss (Lin, 2010, p. 9).
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).”
The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or loss. Making the person “whole” and
Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was
Class action lawsuits, sometimes called “multiple litigation lawsuits”, can be used when many individuals have been injured by the same product or action of a single defendant. The individuals can come together to seek justice when “their injuries have been cause by defective products, including pharmaceutical drugs, motor vehicles and other consumer products, and medical devices. Other types of conduct over which people have sued as a class include consumer fraud, corporate misconduct, securities fraud, and employment practices.”
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.
Many courts in America have been backlogged due to an excess in frivolous lawsuits, many of which are tort lawsuits. A frivolous lawsuit is a case where no real damage was done to the plaintiff, but is filed anyway. Since these lawsuits are frivolous the only people really benefitting from them are the attorneys. The attorney usually gets a part of whatever compensation/ damages/ settlement paid by the company being sued. Because of this lawyers will actively seek out case to pull together into a lawsuit that will generate a large sum of money for themselves. Even though the people themselves wouldn’t have filed a lawsuit before being found by the lawyer, they file the suit due to the promise of a settlement (Pearson and
McDonald's Restaurants, the infamous McDonald's coffee case. A 1994 product liability lawsuit, a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. In reality this really should have taken McDonald’s out of business, However she was compensated 2.86 Million dollars. McDonalds is one of the world’s biggest franchises, by becoming one of the world’s leading foodservice retailers in more than 100 countries. McDonalds has more than 36,000 resturaunts serving approximately 69 million people EVERYDAY per http://www.mcdonalds.com/ In my own opinion I feel like in the case the woman who sustained injuries was well taken care of. However, in Tort Reform it has changed so much over the years in the case 2.86 Million dollars may seem like a great amount of money, when you think about recovery fees, doctor fees, lawyer fees, court fees did she really have 2.86 million dollars? I strongly feel that this law has too many loopholes and it doesn’t need to be in place. During my research I didn’t see anything reason for it to still be into place. I did not find the tort
Most manufacturers care about their consumers and subsequently, do not intentionally manufacture products that harm their users. However, injuries from defective products do occur, and they occur often. The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that in 2014, 78,906 product liability cases were filed in the US. Furthermore, product liability cases are second only to medical malpractice as having the highest median damage awards in all personal injury cases. Fortunately, the liability for these products and the injuries they cause lies on the individuals or companies individuals or companies responsible for manufacturing and distributing them. Product liability cases are often difficult, expensive, and time-consuming.
Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.
In the opposing article written by Richard L. Abel he feels there is not enough litigation in our country and it is necessary to have in our legal system. Abel believes that victims obtain better outcomes in the tort system today then they did in our past. Tort claims which are successful do not create an accident cost, in fact if proven they shift the cost from the victims to the tortfeasors. Many accidents and injuries occur in our country from year to year. Surveys have concluded that everyone will suffer from one serious injury throughout their lifetime in which they are not likely to recover from the damages because of a tortfeasor. Abel blames all of these problems on the present tort system we have today, in which he states is an absolute failure. Abel writes in his article that most scholars believe that tort law is divided up into three basic principal objectives: redressing the violation of important norms, compensating victims, and discouraging unsafe behavior. He writes about how most feel litigations which go through the courts these days are ludicrous and crazy. Also most of the lawsuits which happen are unjust and don?t deserve to be heard in a court of law. Abel believes that the media is what
during the incident. The distinction between crime and torts is that crime is a conduct of shown
Court cases can be pretty simple, right? For example, you are doing construction a house, and you fall in a hole in the floor at said house that wasn’t railed off and break your back. You’d sue. It’s the