Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform

Essay on Health Care and Tort Reform
Rising health care costs have caused a national crisis, and all agree we must embrace reform.
President Obama has initiated his national health care plan in the hopes of decreasing some of the
inflated costs. When attempting to resolve this issue, one must always address the root of the
problem. A large portion of these inflationary costs stem from malpractice lawsuits, and so begins
the debate for tort reform: legislation which would cut the costs of health care by reducing the risk
of civil litigation and exposure to fraudulent claims ("What"). However, the real factor at hand and
the real cause of the industry's high costs does not come solely from the cost incurred from these
lawsuits, but from over–expenditures on the part of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The two most popular seem to be the capping of damages – limiting the rewards a victim of medical
malpractice receives – and the limitation of a patient's right to jury (Odom, "Health"). A number of
other proposed actions exist, including procedural limitation on the ability to file claims and the idea
called "loser pays" – forcing the loser of the case to pay for the other party's costs in the trial. The
practice of capping damages would reduce risk for doctors, as a lawsuit would no longer bankrupt
them. Thus, they would not be forced to over–test and overspend. It would also create less incentive
for patients to pursue claims they knew were undeserved (Odom). Many proponents of tort reform
also advocate limiting patients' rights to a trial by jury – specially designed "health courts" would
preside over the cases instead ("Health"). Because of the trial by jury, as currently practiced in these
cases, very often the actual reprimands and awards are subject to chance and the "sympathy vote"
instead of facts. The same injury could grant a patient anywhere from $100,000 to $2 million
("Health"). The design of health courts would eliminate this subjectivity, and redress would be
awarded in reasonable, consistent amounts. The two other actions mentioned, procedural limitations
on the ability to file claims and the "loser pays" idea, would work by decreasing the incentive of a
patient to file an unreasonable claim. It
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Arguments Against Tort Reform
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.
Tort reform would also significantly reduce the number of weak and baseless lawsuits that courts
are forced to see every year. Additionally, medical malpractice lawsuits flood the court system and
they are a big reason for high medical prices. It could be argued that expensive lawsuits increase the
cost for companies to provide medical care, then the high cost is passed down to the consumer, or
the insurance company who then raises the cost of insurance premiums to cover the higher medical
bills. Ultimately, this ends up affecting all Americans and the price that we have to pay for medical
care all because someone sued for medical malpractice and ended up being awarded a huge and
excessive damage award.
A great reform proposal is listed on page 335, it's about limiting damage awards. The state would
limit the amount of damages that can be awarded in a medical ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Another argument against Tort reform is that according to the Los Angeles Times, although many
medical malpractice lawsuits are deemed frivolous, defensive medicine only accounts for a very
small percentage of overall health care spending. This argument is supported by this article :

Tort Reform And The Civil Justice System
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. First, the initial opinion of two
out of three people when asked what is their opinion of the case is similar. The first interviewee,
Tyler, believed Stella Liebeck just burnt her legs a little bit and that it was either the

Tort Reform And Medical Malpractice
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. Proof of Malpractice
For a plaintiff to triumph a claim of medical malpractice for negligence, four elements must be
established. The first element is proving the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The
second is to show that the defendant breached the duty to the plaintiff. The third is to show that the
plaintiff was harmed and experienced damages. Finally, the fourth is to show that the plaintiff was
harmed by the actions of the defendant (Greenberg, 2009). How does medical malpractice differ
from a standard negligence claim? Medical malpractice differs from a standards negligence claim
and some states have different definitions. There are two primary formulations for the legal standard
of

Liebeck V. Mcdonalds Essay
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
facts in the Liebeck case start with the incident description as recounted by Aric Press in the March
20, 1995 issue of Newsweek. Ms. Liebeck was a recently retired, 79 year old woman who ordered
coffee at a McDonald's drive through and received it in a lidded, styrofoam cup (Press, 1995, p. 32).
After the order was picked up, her grandson ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
McDonald's had as many as 700 reports of coffee that scalded customers, creating injuries (Gerlin,
1994, p.1). The jury decided that the plaintiff was entitled to both compensatory damages of
$200,000, reduced by $40,000 for her own negligence, and punitive damages totaling $2.7 million
(Gerlin, 1994, p.1). Gerlin (1994) goes on to state that "the jury found that McDonald's had engaged
in willful, reckless or malicious conduct" and subsequently used that for the basis of their punitive
damages (p. 2). The number settled on was equivalent roughly to two days worth of coffee sales
companywide (Gerlin, 1994, p.2). The jury concluded that McDonald's behaved callously and
punished them accordingly (Coffin, 2004, p.4). The jury decided the warning on the cup was
insufficient for the hazard (Press, 1995, p.33). The jury applied the law correctly since it was
determined that McDonald's was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned
of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the
level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that "the
plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the
product would be dangerous in its ordinary use..." (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172).
In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

Tort Law Reform Research Paper
Is Tort Law Reform the Solution?
Because the practice of defensive medicine is driven primarily by the threat of legal liability,
researchers have proposed direct or indirect tort law reforms as the solution. With caps on non–
economic damages and "collateral source offsets", direct reforms seek to limit the cost of
malpractice litigation for providers (Kessler, 2011, p. 96). Indirect reforms seek to alleviate
malpractice pressure through other means, including contingency fee limitations, periodic payment
requirements against future damages, joint and several liability reforms, and provisions for patients'
compensation funds (Kessler, 2011). The potential of such reforms to curtail defensive medicine is
based on the assumption that reduced ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Active bills in Florida, Georgia, Maine, and Tennessee during the 2016 legislative session provoked
fierce debates among various stakeholders. The two main arguments focus on the potential for costs
to rise uncontrollably under the PCS, and its feasibility to replace the current malpractice system
(Forray, Fleming, & Wunder, 2014; Forray & Wunder, 2017).
Because the PCS would not function within the legal system, its substitution for the malpractice
liability system may deprive patients and providers of their right to court system access. The PCS'
proposed exclusivity therefore raises constitutionality issues (Forray, Fleming, & Wunder, 2014).
On the other hand, as long as the malpractice liability system exists, injured patients will still find
their way to court, thus perpetuating provider incentives to practice

Tort Law Reform
I found something interesting about the link between political science and personal injury law. I
found that there is a big controversy about the tort law reform in United States. What make the tort
law reform controversial in United States is that its advocates aim to restrict the amount of financial
damages that may be awarded in personal injury cases. People support the tort reform because then
want to avoid excessive damages and legal fees have on industries and others big corporations.
There is been a lot of scholars critics about this reform who believe that this reform is just in the
interest of big cooperation welfare. I definitely find the subject very interesting and my research will
be focus on that. I ask my supervisor some of the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A "A valid claim and a valid Insurance" The claim has to be accurate, and defendable. Also, they
should a proper documentation that support the Claim of the plaintiff. I ask her if they were any
specific tools that the firm use to verify the veracity of s customer claim and she told me that there
wasn't any which I found pretty bad for the law firm. I asked her whether there is been case where
the documentation provide by the plaintiff had been fake. She told me that there has been a case
where that customer on the middle of the process decided to stop the procedure and confess that she
has been involve in a prior Insurance fraud case. She lets me know that being involve in an
insurance fraud affects a claim accuracy. What insurance policy is taken in consideration? The
victim or the responsible party? The responsible party is the one taken in consideration but in some
cases both can be taken in consideration. They is two sort of insurance. The Insurance low limit and
the insurance high limit. In Massachusetts, the required minimum limit coverage is 20,000$. In
example, If there is a case where the responsible party insurance is 25,000$ and that that the court
issued that they have to pay 30,000$ to the victim, the 25,000$ from the responsible party insurance
will be paid and the 5,000$ remaining will be taken in charge by the victim

Essay on Frivolous Lawsuits
Justice, Tranquility and The Greed for Money
Lynn Hubbard is handicapped. She happens to also have her own law firm. In the past year, she sued
more than 600 nearly irreproachable institutions for over two million dollars. Hubbard and her
entourage of scheming lawyers have not done anything illegal. Some may argue that she has simply
exercised her right to the legal system. In any case, Hubbard is part of the growing American society
that has discovered large money in mass litigation. This rise in greedy and manipulative lawyers has
provided Americans with a skewed financial interest in the American courtroom and has hindered
the justice system as a whole. Congress must reexamine tort reform to provide Americans with a
trustworthy and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
His argument, which focuses on the separation of powers in the American government, explains
why Americans rush to the courtrooms unlike other democratic countries. The concept of "checks
and balances," America's system of separated powers, limited national control over state and local
police forces and independent judiciary, was intended to protect American citizens from tyranny
(Burke 24). However, it has also made it harder for elected leaders to get things done. Take Britain,
Germany, or France, for instance, all of which have centralized governments that provide them with
safeguards and social welfare benefits. Instead of national healthcare that is practiced throughout
Europe, "Americans get proposals for a 'patients' bill of rights' that would allow the sick to sue their
managed–care companies" (Burke 22). The problem has become so out of control in the United
States, doctors in Florida, New Jersey, and West Virginia went on strike earlier this year. Delaying
surgeries, in an effort to decrease annual insurance premiums of over $100,000, doctors asked
Congress for reform on malpractice liability and lowered caps on "pain and suffering." Eduardo
Esper, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Wheeling, West Virginia, was part of the walk out that occurred
early in January of 2003. "We're not prepared, having spent all night with a patient, for that patient
to come back and sue us. And the majority of the time those suits are promoted by lawyers that I

Law 304: Mcdonald's Hot Coffee Case
Hot Coffee Documentary
JORGE A. CENICEROS
National University
LAW 304
CHRISTOPHER J. REEBER, J.D., L.L.M.
Hot Coffee Questions:
Did you know about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case before the video?
I heard about the case, and like most people, my opinion was formed with inaccurate information.
The information was provided via television and radio, but there must have been information in the
newspaper as well. Several radio talk shows used the case and their opinion to their benefit. People
from all over called in to share their opinion, similar to what we saw in the video. I remember I
share the same opinion with some of them, even though none of us had our facts straight. I was
transitioning from San Diego to Los Angeles when this was going on. It was very interesting to see
how different the opinions from one city to the other over the "frivolous injury" case. (A, 2016)
Regardless of the difference in personal opinion, none of the comments and discussion I remember
had any of the facts straight. 20 years after the case, most people still don't have the facts straight
from the case. Ant that is the real problem. We, the average citizen, do not get involved or even try
to find out more ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Plainly said, Tort Reform is caps on damages. Tort reform is not just one single idea or law, but
mostly it's a group of ideas and laws which are designed to change the way our civil justice system
works. After careful examination of several sites and blogs, it is obvious that Tort Reform is
extremely controversial. Several articles aimed at providing a neutral explanation of what individual
tort reform measures are, and the effect they will have on the court system and on citizens, if we are
not careful when we vote for these types of policy changes. (Admin,

Tort Reform Research Paper
he Tort Law is a civil injury or wrongful act that is committed against another person or property
resulting in harm and his compensated by money damages. To sue for a tort a person must have
suffered a mental or physical injury that was caused by the physician or the physician's employee.
The tort reform is a "group of ideas and laws designed to change the way or civl justice system
works." The tort reform movement was started in 1970 and headed up by insurance companies and
large corporations in which to attack the civil justice system and change laws not by case by case
but by legislation. "One of the most significant arenas that tort reform has affected is medical
malpractice law. In many states, there are caps on the damages that victims

The Issue Of Tort Reform
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Perhaps one way to analyze the situation is through concepts of loss–shifting and loss–spreading. I
would anticipate such insurers directly or directly support tort reform aimed at limiting the quantum
of damages. On the other hand, I would be surprised if they supported substantial removal of the
right to sue in tort, because that is part of their business. (Journal of Patient Safety) Anyone with a
valid claim stands to receive compensation, but only up to a specified amount, which often leads to
dissatisfaction and complaint There are qualitative factors, of course, that add to the complexity of
these scenarios. I believe there are some interesting studies around no–fault apology that might
contribute to a reduction in claims, for example. It would also be interesting to see what
improvements collaborative law processes might bring.
Both the loss–shifting and the loss–spreading scenarios are vulnerable to exploitation by players
motivated by greed or factors of self–advancement. In an ideal world, a civil society could rationally
and effectively operate either or both loss shifting or loss spreading models in a sustainable way.
This seems unlikely to eventuate in current circumstances, unless there was a momentous shift in
consciousness. What seems more likely is that interested parties will struggle to improve their
position in the field through statutory

How The Tort Reform Has Impacted Individuals '...
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. 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. Through the discovery and length of the case it
was discovered that the company had a large number of complains with their coffee. It was also
discovered that the coffee was made to be from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause
third degree burns in a few seconds. When it came to allocations, 80% of the blame was placed on
McDonals and the remaining was placed on Stella; this

Tort Reform in the Us
The Need for Tort Reform in the United States Tort law is a type of law that is designed to offer
remedies to civil wrongs. Unlike contractual damages that occur, where responsibility is
predetermined, tort law is designed for someone who is legally injured to be able to recover
damages from the person who is deemed legally responsible, or liable for such injuries. Tort law is
broken down into three main categories, negligence, strict liability, and intentional tort. In
negligence tort one is accused of causing damages through their carelessness. After accusation of
negligence the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant had duty of care, and that a breach
of duty had occurred that caused the damages. Strict liability is a ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As aforementioned the severe costs of the American tort system have and are becoming more of a
burden on the economy. The effects do not only affect American families, but also businesses as
they have to pay higher insurance costs. Excessive litigation also hurts the economy by slowing
down productivity and growth due to the lack of risk–taking which consequently slows down the
introduction of new technologies. Trying to tackle this problem is University of Virginia law
professor Jeffrey O'Connell and Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who together have
accumulated a number of tort reform ideas that potentially eliminate the absurd incentives of tort
law and result in cast economic savings. The pair had three reform ideas. First is the "auto–choice"
reform which is designed to make $40 million in savings available on auto insurance premiums. The
desired result from this reform would translate in a saving on a typical insurance premium of an
average of $221. The second (co–authored by Professor Lester Brickman of the Cardozo Law
School) is the contingency fee reform. It is designed to appreciably lower attorney fees by $45
billion a year. It would do this by paying the plaintiff's attorney the amount that they add to the
client's settlement. This is a sort of incentive plan that would give greater reason for the attorney to

Why The Arms Act Is An Undue Burden On The Gun Act Essay
1. The Exaggerated Rationale of "Frivolous Lawsuits" as an Undue Burden on the Gun Industry
The prohibition of "frivolous lawsuits" is at the foundation of the Arms Act's existence. Data show
that, at the time the Act became law, there was no fiscal crisis impending against the firearms
industry and the magnitude of lawsuits had been exaggerated. The greater trend of "tort reform"
itself has succeeded in protecting private interests at the expense of meritorious claimants. This is
one of the key reasons why the Arms Act implements a naked preference as its means, with no
legitimate public ends.
Beginning in the mid–1970s, corporate forces aligned with political candidates in order to curb
regulation and install shields against tort liability. Groups like the Manhattan Institute, the American
Tort Reform Association (ATRA), and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
procured this "tort reform" legislation. ATRA in particular has succeeded in pushing legislation that
makes it more difficult for individuals to pursue tort claims. In 2011, the Center for Justice and
Democracy reported that "thirty–eight states have passed 'tort reform' laws that impede consumers'
ability to seek punitive remedies."
The National Center for State Courts reports that our perceptions of civil litigation are
problematically distorted, even though "high–value tort and commercial contract disputes are the
predominant focus of contemporary debates." High–value tort cases make up

Argument Essay: Opposing Tort Reform
Opposing Tort Reform Tort reform concerns constructing modifications to the tort law that place
caps on the amount individuals can claim when filing a lawsuit. The lawsuits that can be filed are
personal injuries, medical malpractice, car accidents, and defective products.
In Albuquerque, NM, Stella Libeck, a 79 year–old woman, a passenger accidentally spilled scalding
hot coffee in her lap, which was purchased through the McDonald's drive–thru. The incident caused
third–degree burns around her pelvic area. She was in the hospital for eight days and was required to
receive medical treatment for two years. With the required medical treatments, her medical expenses
began to accumulate and her funds began to dwindle. Liebeck requested McDonald's to ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The moral philosophies each have their perspectives on moral act when it comes to others well–
being. When an organization is operating in a safe and responsible manner, then there is nothing to
fear. (HG.org., 2015). However, when negligence comes in play, then there is a red flag.
Organizations should be operating at their highest potential and keeping their customer, clients, and
patients in mind in order to continue without the fear of a lawsuit. The "frivolous actions," are what
some people express to those who are attempting to obtain any financial benefits from the
negligence is sad. The tort reform is unfair to the people that are harmed and some of the injuries
may be permanent and painful. Moreover, this violates the person's constitutional rights and the tort
law placing caps on the amount sets the boundaries to the ruling of the jury. An organization who
makes the defective product or the physician who caused the pain, should be responsible for
compensation for their wrongdoing or malpractice. With this, it could assist other organizations to
practice the business without causing harm to their customers, clients, and

Essay Mcdonald's V Liebeck
Liebeck v. McDonald's, also known as the McDonald's Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability
lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court's
awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from
McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US. Stella Liebeck, a 79–year–old woman
was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car, while she ordered a coffee from McDonald's.
Liebeck's nephew parked the car to allow his grandmother to add cream and sugar to her coffee.
When she placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her in
order to remove it, the entire cup of coffee was spilled on Liebeck's lap. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, this contradicts the
company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving.
The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was
found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the
occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the
warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory
damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages,
which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck, and
both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000. This lawsuit had
impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its
policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce
the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save
money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has
been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third–degree burns. This

Medical Malpractice And Tort Reform
Medical Malpractice and 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.
Initial doctors are there to help aid person to feel better whether it's a common cold or for other
medical treatment. Doctors always try to do what right for the patient and make sure they abide but
all rules and regulations. However, some doctors be put in situation that deemed unfair, likely do
with the patient not satisfied with the doctors. While some patients will try to create sometime false
negligence there are some defenses that help doctors through the medical malpractice claims such as
the contributory negligence, respectable minority principle and statute of limitations just to name a
few.
Defenses
Contributory Negligence allows the medical professional to seek out negligence of the patients if the
root of their injury was sought to be the blame of the patient and not of the medical profession.
Thomson Reuters (2015) explains that this negligence can be due to the patient not following
directions and mixing up the prescriptions or failure to give

Hot Coffee Tort Reform Essay
Robert D'Agostini Hot Coffee After viewing the short documentary "Hot Coffee" my opinions
surrounding tort law and tort reform had changed significantly. Tort reform is the attempt to create
greater restrictions on lawsuits, make it more difficult to obtain a jury in civil court, and create
restrictions on how much compensation can be won in court. The Leibeck case is one of the most
well known tort law cases and, due to the fact that many people are unaware of the details of this
case, has given those attempting to create tort reform an advantage by enforcing the stereotype that
all tort cases are frivolous lawsuits. This case has convinced many that tort reform is necessary to
create 'caps on damages' for lawsuits. The general publics understanding of this case was that an
elderly woman spilled ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It was discovered that there were many reports of serious burns from McDonald's coffee and thus
McDonalds was guilty of negligence and punitive damages. Leibeck went to court to get her
medical expenses covered and to get McDonalds to lower their coffee to a reasonable temperature
and although in addition to medical compensation she was awarded 2.8 million it was reduced to
$640000 by the trial judge. The common misconception of what Leibeck was after and what she
was awarded gave those supporting tort reform, which is largely organizations like the chamber of
commerce acting in the interests of large corporations, a new way to convince people of the benefits
of tort reform and caps on damages. In addition to spending copious amounts of money and time on
tort reform, large businesses are using other forms of legal restriction such as mandatory arbitration
clauses. These are fine print contracts, which most people agree to without reading when buying
products, designed to force the consumer to give up rights to fight negligence and tort cases in a
civil court, which is the only area of the law where individuals can have an equal chance of

America 's Civil Justice Reform
Introduction 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.
Facts
Liebeck was riding as a passenger in her grandson's car. After receiving her order, he pulled up and
stopped so Liebeck could put cream and sugar in her coffee. She placed the Styrofoam coffee
between her knees because there was no cup–holder and tried to remove the lid. However, the coffee
spilled onto her and she received third–degree burns on her buttocks, genital, groin, and inner
thighs. She was hospitalized for eight days and had skin grafts and debridement treatments. Liebeck
was also disabled for two years after the accident and permanently scarred. Her daughter took off of
work to help take Stella to and from the hospital. She also lost around twenty percent of her
bodyweight following the incident. Before going to trial, Liebeck offered to settle for $20, 000,
which would cover just her hospital stay and other medical expenses. McDonald's counteroffered
with an amount of $800. Ms. Liebeck then hired an attorney, Reed Morgan, who had requested
$90,000. McDonald's also refused this offer.

The Tort Of Tort Reform
Tort reform is the attempt to improve the tort law, which is a civil wrong that unreasonably causes
another individual to suffer harm or loss resulting in legal liability for the individual who commits
the unjust act. It has been occurring since the 1900s, where certain people, such as wealthy
defendants and insurance companies, disliked the idea that people were receiving a limitless amount
of money using the tort law. So, many interest groups, lobbyist groups, and PACs (political action
committees) took control over reforming the tort law in attempt to achieve the goal of reducing the
amount of money defendants would have to pay by putting caps on damages. In this way, large
insurance companies and other corporations and groups have ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The tort law can be traced back to the late 1500s when ancient Roman law contained rules for torts,
also known as wrongful acts, that later influenced the rest of Europe in regards to civil law
jurisdictions. People have been suing over torts since the beginning of time and there has not been a
limit to how much money the defendant could be sued for, that is for damages. It wasn't until large
businesses decided to change the tort law to satisfy and financially help themselves. With the change
that they proposed, people's rights are still at risk and are being taken advantage of, because many
are uninformed of how such corporations are abusing the civil justice system.
Medical malpractice, the negligence of a health professional in diagnosing, treating, and or caring
for a patient, is a specific tort law under the negligence torts. In the medical field, the tort reform has
affected many people including doctors, lawyers, insurance company owners and workers, patients,
and including other citizens. While large corporations, doctors, and other defendants are benefitting
from caps on damages, that is limiting the amount of money that can be granted in court, plaintiffs,
lawyers, and citizens are affected differently. Doctor Sage stated in an interview that he has, "never
felt that caps on damages had a major effect on patients one way or the other" ("Could
Malpractice"). This remark makes those injured question about

Mcdonald's Misunderstood Case
I recall hearing about a case years ago when a lady sued McDonald's over a spilled cup of coffee. I
remember thinking to myself how lucky this lady must have been to win so much money over
something that seemed frivolous to me. I felt as though she had won the lottery for something she
not only could have prevented by using reasonable care, but also for something that happens often
without a striking settlement of 2.9 million dollars. Without looking into the details then, I recently
found out how misunderstood this story actually is.
On Saturday, August 29, 2015, I found out the truth behind this very misunderstood case. We
watched a film in class that covered this exact issue and incorporated facts to which most of us were
unaware of. Between the years of 1983 and 1992, McDonald's had over 700 claims that reported
customers similarly burning themselves from the extreme temperature of its coffee. Ignoring these
claims, McDonald's blatantly sustained its course of business and continued brewing its coffee
between the temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Hearing this information in class I felt
ashamed that I once felt this harmless lady, Stella Liebeck, was merely an opportunist seeking an
inflated ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It should especially be of no surprise to a conglomerate like McDonald's that serving beverages at
these temperatures is a risky act. After the images of Stella Liebeck's third degree burns were shown
in the film, I was stunned. I could not believe what I was seeing. The extents of her burns were so
severe that I simply looked away from the screen. Seeing and hearing the facts from the time I once
thought of this story as a sickening act of opportunity from a merciless individual, I now understood
all of the reasons as to why the lawsuit was filed, and

Essay on America Needs Tort Reform
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, "The tort system is truly
broken and in bad need of repair." Tort cases are becoming an extremely common fight in the
nation's legal system. Since 1986, 38 of the 50 United States have adopted some sort of tort reform.
However, with the many flaws of the tort system today, the suffering American economy will
continue to fall behind if the American public does not insist on fighting for justice in the legal
system. The governing bodies of these states must continue to seek reform and propose strategies to
fix the corruption in the tort system. The legal system set up by the founding fathers will experience
corruption in the negligence of these governing bodies. Tort ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Reform is needed.
In 2005, the estimated cost of the tort system in the United States was approximately 260.8 billion
dollars. Broken down, every U.S. citizen spends approximately 880 dollars annually on "litigation
taxes" which fund United States tort cases (Balik, Carl). Understanding these numbers, it is absurd
to think that a family of 6 spends approximately $5,280 each year on frivolous cases in the nation's
judicial system. With each U.S. citizen paying roughly $1,000 on cases of tort, it is obvious that the
system is being abused. Caps in the tort system limit the amount of money a jury can award a
victim. These need to be put in place in order to prevent further damage to the nation's economy and
further abuse to the county's legal system.
Lawsuits of medical malpractice may be the greatest threat to justice in the legal system. Tort cases
are constantly filed against medical practices which cause health care prices to dramatically increase
in states lacking caps. Medical practitioners are forced to undergo an unnecessary amount of costly
tests and procedures in order to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. The expenses of these
precautions cause hospitals and other medical facilities to charge more for the care given to the
patients,

Tort Reform In Hot Coffee
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:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial
by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or
loss. Making the person "whole" and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
By the use of Mandatory/binding Arbitration clauses. In Jones v Halliburton, 19 year old Jaime
Leigh signs a contract with Halliburton in Houston Texas, on of the states deeply entrenched in tort
reform with the help of then Gov. George W. Bush. Rove, who helped Bush get elected for governor
uses his corporate backers to finance the Bush campaign, in return they gained a governor and
eventually president who was a mouth piece for their cause. Jaime wound up being stationed in Iraq,
and within 4 days of her arrival she was raped, disfigured and further abused by having evidence

Tort Reform Research Paper
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 on
Helpwriting.net ...
People brought lawsuits against tobacco companies claiming that cigarettes caused different
diseases. These cases did not hold up in court and lost. However, states brought similar lawsuits
against tobacco companies and won. The states were paid $206 billion dollars to offset the costs for
treating those who have been harmed by tobacco products. These lawsuits led to tobacco companies
regulating the industry more and providing public health campaigns warning about the negative
effects tobacco products can have (Aliprandini and Walter 1). The last influential case for tort
litigation is the Dalkon Shield lawsuit. The Dalkon Shield is a birth control device that caused harm
to those who used it. There were so many claims that the company declared bankruptcy. (Although
it was later revealed that the company was not bankrupt but declared it to quit paying claims.) These
lawsuits led to the Medical Device Amendment. This amendment states that all medical devices
need to be tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration before being sold to the public
(Aliprandini and Walter

Noneconomic Damages Reform Essay
Noneconomic Damages 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 ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
According to Sherman Joyce, Victor Schwartz, and Darren McKinney of the ATRA, over 30 states
have implemented some sort of noneconomic damages reform. For example, in 1986 the Alaskan
government established a state cap of $500,000 on, "noneconomic damages for cases that do not
involve any physical impairment or disfigurement." In 1997, Alaska adjusted the noneconomic
damages reform once more. In this modification of the reform, the state went into deeper detail
addressing different instances that could occur and the sufficient compensation for an individual's
pain and suffering. For a single death or injury to a greater extent of $400,000, they are awarded as
much as their life expectancy multiplied by $8,000. In another instance involving severe
disfigurement or physical impairment exceeding $1,000,000, it is the individual's life expectancy (in
years) multiplied by $25,000 (2). Many other states including Alabama, California, Missouri, and
other states have established their own type of cap or system for awarding damages for pain and
suffering. In states that have a cap or system of deciding awards, they have lower insurance and
health care premiums and the prices of goods and services stays lower. This benefits the state's
economy as well as the Nation's.
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

Tort Reform And Frivolous Lawsuits
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
To make it more difficult for injured people to file lawsuits
To make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial
To place limits on the amount of money injured people received in a lawsuit.
Frivolous lawsuits are lawsuits that cannot be supported under existing legal precedent. In political
debate the term frivolous is used to describe torts as a small connection between the defendant and
the plaintiff where the damages sought after are too high. The U.S. sees about 15 million lawsuits
each year that

Medical Malpractice And Tort Reform
Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Within the realm of American tort law, medical malpractice is
equated to professional negligence and is a highly debated issue. "The government estimates that
between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year in hospitals due to medical mistakes, the vast
majority of them preventable" (Lau & Johnson, 2011). In differentiating this type of tort from
standard negligence claims, similarities and differences are illustrated through the elements of a
cause of action and available defenses. In further examination of the issue, ethical questions arise in
regards to malpractice tort reform, which can be analyzed through the presentation of multiple
professional perspectives as well as previous tort cases in order to expose the multi–faceted issue at
hand.
Four Elements of a Medical Malpractice Cause of Action First, in order for a plaintiff to prevail
through a medical malpractice cause of action, four key elements must be proven. Initially, the
existence of a patient–provider relationship must be evident. Additionally, there must be an
establishment of a medical standard of care. This foundational element pertains to the appropriate
level of care under the circumstances, essentially the average degree of care and skill of similar
health care providers. The third element which must be proven is a breach of that medical standard
of care. By contrasting the care provided in the specific case to the typically appropriate level of
care expected from a

Tort Lawsuits Argumentative Essay
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 on
Helpwriting.net ...
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

Essay on Tort Reform
Tort Law and Cases:
A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010
|
Introduction
"A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property"; that is brought before a court to
compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage, 2010, pg 251). In order to prove an intentional
tort, the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation
4) Injury or Harm.
The following tort cases, Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonalds, have been a pinnacle "poster
child" for tort reform in the United States. In 2002, frivolous lawsuits cost taxpayers over $233
billion (Insideprison.com, 2006). What is considered a frivolous lawsuit? It is when an attorney ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(Manning–Sossamon.com, 2009)
Originally, Mr. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for the loss of his pants, alleging claims of common
law fraud and that they violated the CPPA by displaying signs that read "Satisfaction Guaranteed",
"All Work Done on Premises" and "Same Day Service". The amount Mr. Pearson was seeking for
relief was $67 million dollars, since that is what it would take for the Chungs to satisfy his claim
(Pearson 2). It was Mr. Pearson's belief, that there is an unconditional warranty that Custom
Cleaners now must provide since they have the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign hanging in there
store. (Pearson 4). In the pretrial discovery, the court confirmed that all work was done on premises,
and the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on the portion of fraud. Mr. Pearson
amended his lawsuit and stated that he is "not suing for lost pants", but only regarding the
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign. (Pearson 4). Mr. Pearson insists that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed"
sign is unconditional and limitless (Pearson 7). In addition, the claim tickets that are printed have
limitations on the back which further limit the unlimited guarantee that is provided by the signs
hanging in the store, which is a violation of the FTC regulations regarding "Satisfaction
Guaranteed" (Pearson 20). The court, however, ruled that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" means how
a

Goldberg's Arguments Against Tort Reform
[T]ort is best understood as a law for the redress of private wrongs. Taking seriously tort's structure,
vocabulary and 'grammar', leads one to grasp that the point of this body of law is to articulate duties
of conduct that individuals and entities owe to one another, and to empower those injured by
breaches of these duties (i.e., by wrongs) to invoke the law to go after their wrongdoers. Tort law, in
other words, is best theorized as a special kind of victims' rights law. As such, it promises to deliver
various goods within our liberal–constitutional system of government apart from deterrence and
compensation, even though it will sometimes deliver those as well. In particular, it reinforces and
refines norms of responsible conduct, helps sustain a distinctively liberal notion of civil society,
assures citizens that government is committed to attend to their complaints on a more or less
individualized basis, and avoids excessive reliance on top–down regulation.6 ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
In a sense, his thoughts give a type of measuring tool to determine whether the reforms, made or
proposed, will better assist the tort system in accomplishing its goals.
This Article will address a wide variety of arguments for and against tort reform, and will discuss
possible solutions to improve the current tort system. My purpose in writing this Article is not to
offer a definitive solution to the tort reform debate, but instead to accurately present and analyze tort
reform issues in the hope that someday a "wise agreement"7 will be negotiated that meets the needs
of all parties involved in the tort

Tort Reform Essay
Tort Reform 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. Various organizations working in
favor of tort reform include the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It consists of people living in communities joining together to try to stop the "high cost and injustice
in our legal system" (American Tort Reform Association). Located throughout the United States, the
CALA is fighting to eliminate the high payouts for circumstantial cases (American Tort Reform
Association). The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of
money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length
including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death
of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety–three year old woman. The non–economic punitive damages cash
award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy–eight million
dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes
continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The
premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6
million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to
dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean
that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying

Tort Reform
In the United States justice system, a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed
deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be
traced back to the initial trespass of property or person, but it was not until the 18th century that the
distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia). In recent years, tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in
tort costs, insurance liability costs, and the number of frivolous lawsuits made. This scrutiny has
lead to the creation of tort reform. Tort reform is a movement to reshape the way consumers can
access the courts by restricting their right to sue and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They also claim that tort reform bills are giving unprecedented immunity to certain industries and
that this type of bill in unconstitutional. Another key counter–argument made by the opposition is
the denial of the existence of "litigation explosion" that the advocates have presented. They show
that from 1993, instead of seeing the increase claimed by the advocates, there has actually been a
decrease of tort filings by 5%. They also further there counter argument by showing that the
numbers of civil trials have dropped by 47% during the same time frame (ATLA). Though these
arguments are mainly presented to counter and invalidate the advocates of tort reformation, the
opponents have also presented other unique arguments in opposition of tort reform. One strong
argument that the opponents have put forth to the public is the argument that corporations and
insurance companies are the worst abusers of the litigations system and setting forth new regulations
that would protect them from "excessive litigation" would just be another benefit. These
corporations are using their vast resources to unfairly delay trials, pursue frivolous appeals, and
contest claims in which liability is clear. This reasoning supports the opposition as there have been
suggestions of tort reform where the "loser pays" (Wikipedia). If a reformation such as this one was
passed into the system, then private citizens would be afraid to sue the

Medical Malpractice Tort Reform
One approach to minimize large amounts of tort claims for medical malpractice is to put a cap on
non–economical awards. Tort reform is the response; a tort is a civil lawsuit for damages over
private wrongs other than breach of contract. According to Lau and Johnson (2014), a tort can be
categorized into three categories: intentional tort, when tortfeasor acted with intent, negligence, if
the tortfeasor did not act intentionally, but failed to act as a reasonable person, and lastly, strict
liability, if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities, which caused injury or death due to it. The
massive medical malpractice cases across the nation have made defending frivolous lawsuits is a
national problem; ultimately, the general public ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Further, Professor Baker at the University of Pennsylvania posited that we have the same number of
claims today as in the late 1980s. In addition, reforms actually make it more difficult for victims to
prove their cases. Furthermore, due to the cap on financial awards, most of the time, it costs victims
a large sum of money to pursue the case and end up spending more on expense than the reward.
Currently, according to Doroshow (2009), there are more liability protection for the medical
profession than any other profession in the nation. The reforms actually offer Healthcare giants
more protection by limiting tort actions and compensatory damages. For example, a Milwaukee
woman was awarded $25.3 million in tort damages after losing all four limbs due to doctor
negligence. Interestingly, Wisconsin law has a non–economic damage limit of $750,000, therefore
the defense attorneys will likely ask for the award to be lowered to that amount (Spivak, 2014). Two
vastly different example; however, the latter clearly demonstrated the reasonableness of the award–
thus, reform is necessary, but a greater examination of special clauses may be in order to offset the

The Consequences Of Tort Reform
One of the great privileges of living in America is the ability to seek the American dream. We have
the opportunity, if we work hard enough, to seek any career path of our choice. Those who seek out
a career in healthcare should not be faced with the fear of legal action staring at them around every
corner. However, there should be consequences in the event of proven neglectful medical care.
Therefore, there has to be a middle ground, where both patients can receive care and healthcare
professionals can practice in a safe, fearless environment. Tort reform aims to accomplish this goal.
Tort reform represents suggested changes in the civil justice system that intend to limit the capacity
of tort litigation that victims can bring to court. Specifically,

Tort Law
Expanding Reasonableness in the Field of Torts Induces Efficiency and Fairness
1. Introduction
Over the past several years the body of laws governing compensation in tort law has substantially
transformed from its common law origins. In the course of what many have advocated in the name
of "tort reform," more than half of the United States have revised, or attempted to revise, one or
more aspects of tort liability and damage principles to a greater or lesser degree. Tort law is, of
course, constantly evolving; everyday in courts across the country, judges, attorneys and jurors are
making and reshaping the law. Despite efforts for reform, one still cannot overlook the nature of
modern torts and fail to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Employing two different sets of recovery is cumbersome and confusing for those seeking recovery.
Also, the courts would have an easier time of understanding and applying one set of laws and
regulations than two different sets as we have today. Historically, however, the use of negligence
theory for such purposes was drastically limited by the requirement of privity.10 This requirement
stems from an 1842 English case, Winterbottom, where the driver of a mail coach was injured when
the coach broke down due to a lack of repair.11 He sued the defendant, who contracted with the post
office to keep the coach in good condition. The court held that since the defendant 's original duty or
repair arose out of a contract; that duty extended only to the other contracting party; the post office.
Since the plaintiff never contracted with the defendant, his lack of privity meant that he could not
recover, either in contract or more importantly for this discussion, tort. 12
During the seventy years following this case, the courts modified that rule to permit negligence suits
without privity where personal injury occurred from an "inherently dangerous" defective product.13
A consumer who was made sick by contaminated food, for example, could sue the manufacturer,
even though she had made her purchase from a retailer; the food was said

Business Law 355 : Tort Reform
Sabrina Hood
Business Law 355
Tort Reform Paper
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)."
Tort reforms are laws that limit or reduce damages or awards in a specific state. People are in favor
of tort reforms because they think that frivolous lawsuits are clogging the courtrooms, which is just
not true. In 1992, the National Center for State Court's (NCSC) data showed that only 2.4% all civil
cases brought to court were of medical cases and only 1.7% were product cases. This very clearly
shows that frivolous civil cases are not clogging the court room (The Free Library). In 2008, Senator
John McCain made a claim for tort reforms by saying he wanted to pass them "to eliminate
frivolous lawsuits (Quinn)." However, are all law suits frivolous? Is every

Essay on Tort Reform
Tort Reform 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. With the prominence of the tort
reform debate on state legislative floors across the country, many states have introduced and even
passed bills that address reform issues within their respective states. Many reform proponents feel
that changes in the civil justice system should ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Problem: Civil In–justice. Approximately every sector of New York's economy is affected by
the threat of virtually open–ended liability created by the state's current tort laws. Few issues have
as great an impact on the bottom line of so many different companies and industries, as well as
municipalities, school districts and non–profit groups, throughout the state of New York. In the last
four years New York City taxpayers have paid out approximately $1 billion in awards for personal
injury actions. Well over half of that amount was attributable to "pain and suffering," a highly
subjective and amorphous concept, as opposed to economic damages such as lost earnings or
medical expenses. Of the total amount paid, 33 to 40 percent went to attorneys in the form of
contingency fees or to experts or other in reimbursements for expenses. In FY 1977 the City's total
payout in tort actions was less than $25 million compared to $120 million in FY 1987 a mere ten
year difference, and a staggering $282 million for FY 1996. Would you believe half of that money
could have been used to hire 2,800 police officers or over 3,600 teachers? The time for corrective
legislative action for New York has come. New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform, prompted by
outrageous

Tort Law Reform And The Law Of Negligence
Introduction
A Tort is a legal construct and is not to be confused with a wrong in the general sense. It only exists
where the law exists'' The question is, Where there is no debate or argument that a duty of care is
owed to customers, public, employees where possibility of a risk may occur, that the scope of
liability in the tort of negligence or breach of duty.
In 2002, a Review of the Law of Negligence in Australia conducted by panel and chaired by the
Honourable David Ipp (known as the IPP Report) and the Recommendation 28 of the Standard of
Care and Breach of Duty and Remedies/ Damages. As Stuart and Clark summarise, there has been
major hurdles across the country and codifying common law in the NT would be fruitless. "Tort
Law Reform. While the tort law reform process has been identified above as a driver in the move to
class actions, the system of reform undertaken at both federal and state levels has had a number of
important outcomes, namely reform to the law of negligence. Amendments to limitation periods,
and the capping, or extinguishing, of certain heads of damage.'
Definition of 'Duty of Care', and Standard of Care:
A Duty of Care – 'An Obligation imposed on a person to take reasonable care to ensure that they do
not cause another person to suffer harm. Duty is frequently determined by reference to established
categories, for example, doctors to patients: ; 109 ALR 62. When in doubt, there is no settled
methodology for establishing duty of care

Essay On Tort Reform
Tort Reform Yay or Nay When it comes to Tort Reform I am NOT all for this law. I think that
individuals have the right to compensation for life if they have sustained life lasting injuries.
However, it has been stated per http://www.hg.org/article that Tort Reform doesn't involve a single
law. Torts are known to be the "essence of legal wrongs that infringe the rights of another that leads
to some form of civil liability" each tort reform law is different but share the same goal. For
example: To make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit. To make it more difficult for
injured people to obtain a jury trial. To place limits on the amount of money injured people receive
in a lawsuit. The purpose of this law is to make it more ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
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

Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Alicia Brooks

More from Alicia Brooks (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform