Tort Reform And The Civil Justice System

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.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

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.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

Tort Law is a form of Civil Law and is different than Criminal Law, as it does not seek to punish the wrongdoer, but rather to pay damages to remedy a wrong. A Tort cannot happen without harm occurring. One who has committed a Tort has broken a law against an individual. Typically, damages are paid to the individual in order to make them “whole” and in an effort to make good on their wrongdoings.

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 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 this film it is showcased through several different cases how the tort reform has impacted individuals’ constitutional and civil rights. It also showcases how large companies and political leaders have used their power for their own purposes as well as to push legislature to pass through the White House and become law by financing their campaigns and helping the candidates to win elections. One of those laws was the caps on punitive damages through tort reform.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

There has been over three decades of debate over a reform that affects everything from insurance and health care premiums to the prices of goods and services. The Tort law gives civilians the right to put liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different things if something goes wrong. A main issue of the tort reform is noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awards granted for “pain and suffering.” A solution to this ongoing problem is to set a cap, or ceiling, on the amount of compensation one can receive for his or her “pain and suffering.” An issue with setting caps is that they are argued against as “unconstitutional” and “violates the right to trial by jury” (Hudson) stated in the sixth

There were differences in the way the case and the prosecution and defendants lawyers were portrayed in the film and in the McDonald’s vs. Liebeck case. Stella Liebeck's case was portrayed as acquisitive and soon was manipulated to represent the flaws in the civil justice system. The media reconstructed her case into fragmented bits and transformed it to symbolize the lawsuit crisis (Haltom, McCann 2004). The media left out a great amount of crucial information and evidence that was critical to the decision making of the jury (Haltom, McCann 2004). In fact, mass media stressed the amount of money Liebeck was awarded by the jury, and failed to mention that Liebeck actually received less than 1/5th of what the jury mandated (Haltom, McCann 2004). They also failed to mention the severity of Liebeck’s burns and the extreme heat of the coffee as well as McDonald’s complete disregard for consumer safety (Haltom, McCann 2004). Most general knowledge surrounding the case is false and in favor of McDonald’s perspective.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

Venezuela is a country located on the Caribbean Coast on South America. Research proves that, Christopher Columbus discovered Venezuela in the year 1498 (Coleman, 2015, p.7). The country now consists roughly of about 33 million inhabitants, with about 23 states. Over the years Venezuela has had a large increase in crime in recent years and is now considered to be one of the most corrupt nations in the world. This is due to the extremely high murder rate and the problems in drug trafficking. Ultimately, further examination of Venezuela’s laws, courts, law enforcement, and prison will help to better understand the differences in their criminal justice system and the United States of America.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

the right to a mobility allowance if you are too disabled to walk more than a very short distance.