Tort Reform Research Paper

Civil actions protect individuals rather than the public. Civil actions protect the people, the injury

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.

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).

The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or loss. Making the person “whole” and

Tort reform has intense arguments to both sides and creates a myriad of concerns. On one side of the tort reform movement, defendants such as corporations and medical professionals want limits on the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The benefit of tort reform for defendant is the financial savings. However, a cap placed on medical malpractice cases and other cases that are of negligence would standardize the monetary compensation regardless of the damage. In my opinion, Medical malpractice tort reform is a gray area, for each breach of the standard of care involves a different story and person, therefore the damages vary and should be evaluated fairly. In this essay, both sides of the argument are discussed, with a focus on medical malpractice tort reform.

Medical Malpractice consists of negligence committed by a medical professional. There are many possible events that can occur in the practice of medicine. When physician make a medical error it could possible result in an injury. We often put our faith in doctor to make the right medical decision for us. However, medical malpractice does not always hold up since some patient can take advance of the system. There are some defenses that exist when talking about the medical malpractice.

According to most news articles and journals interpreting the progression of the tort reform, noneconomic damages reforms are the most common throughout the states. As

Individuals have a legal and moral right to receive compensation for their injuries. No corporation or entity should be permitted to have a negative impact on a person's life without being held responsible. The new legal division at Zanes Law works to ensure they are accountable for their

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.

They sell household products such as shampoo and baby powder, which are daily essential products for most of the consumers. Therefore, it is very important that all the information about the products is delivered to the public. However, in 2009, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics discovered that J&J manufactured their baby products with an ingredient that releases formaldehyde, which in high levels can cause cancer [9]. There were many cases where women suffered from ovarian cancer after a long-term use of its baby powder. One of the lawsuits accused the company for not adequately warning about the cancer risk associated with talcum powder, and concealed this information from the public instead [10]. Hence, it was ordered to pay $417 million to a woman who developed ovarian cancer after using its baby powder. Moreover, J&J was ordered to pay $72 million to a family of a woman, aged 62, who died from ovarian cancer because of using their baby powder for many years [11]. This is similar to the crisis that happened back in 1982, where 7 people died from taking their painkiller,

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.

(Yach, Brinchmann, Bellet page 4, 7 and Sloman page 85).This injustice, urged the department of justice to file a civil lawsuit in 1999, against the largest tobacco companies, to recover the cost that federal government has to spend on smoking-related illness each year.