One of the SC consultant/bloggers is cheerleading for tort reform.
The term "tort reform" is like "judicial activism." You can apply it to whatever you -or your clients- don't like. It is an intellectual void- a vacuum.
Mostly it's aimed at medical malpractice cases. Implicit in the "frivolous lawsuits" characterization is the belief that injured people don't really deserve to get a hearing in court. Doctors never make mistakes, after all. Products are never defective.
But the questions nobody ever answers- they're busy waving their pom-poms for their business clients- include these: how do you identify a frivolous lawsuit? How many of those identified don't go to trial? Of those that result in verdicts or settlements, how much do those results force up insurance rates annually? How much gets paid out on policies versus how much insurers pay to never settle? Why do certain professional classes get the legislature to hold its thumb on the scale to give them the advantage in what's supposed to be a fair fight in the courtroom? How many jobs will tort reform create from the savings- not to docs or other professional or businesses- but by their insurance carriers?
Tort reform water carriers are paid not to make serious, data-supported arguments, but just to play little mini Frank Luntzes, testing words for the campaign cycle that now knows no end.
The consultant/blogger doing the cheerleading says if you have a car wreck and aren't wearing a seat belt you don't deserve squat. It's an easy, but empty, claim. The courts already know how to deal with this- it's called comparative negligence and the jury can subtract a percentage they think's appropriate to punish bad behavior.
"Tort reform" is, regrettably, the end, rather than the beginning, of a serious discussion about liability and equity in the court system. Like Ronald Reagan's mythic welfare queens in Cadillacs- or the Georgia legislator who wants to make it law that raped women are not victims but "accusers"- it's an empty vessel people just pour stuff into. Tort reform advocates are only serious about cow-towing to the business interests that give them money and help them keep their sinecures in Columbia.
If tort reform brings down costs, why do costs keep going up? Why will businesses suddenly be seized by a socialist urge to reduce their profits and pass the tort reform savings along to customers. Will there be tort reform sales along the lines of the Presidents' Day Sale?
The welfare and rights of individuals is of no particular interest. Making the courts the preserve of monied interests means the legislature might as well mandate hanging signs over courthouse entrances reading, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here and are not corporations or LLCs".
But it's a central tenet of South Carolina's outdated economic, textile industry development policies: bring us a factory and we'll give you land, shift your taxes to the people you hire, and guarantee that you can treat your workers like crap because what else are they going to go for work, being undereducated and in counties with bad schools and crumbling infrastructure- and if they do find a lawyer to take their case for being injured on the job, the legislature will do its best to make sure they lose in court and get no unemployment or disability benefits.
I've written before about how this consultant/blogger's desire for fame, fees and proximity to power seems to overwhelm any moral sense he might have, not to mention a powerful intellect being squandered in thrall to interests who are getting talent, boot licking and 19th century economic ambitions realized on the cheap.
Some things not even weekday carousing and Sunday School Bapieties can cure.
The term "tort reform" is like "judicial activism." You can apply it to whatever you -or your clients- don't like. It is an intellectual void- a vacuum.
Mostly it's aimed at medical malpractice cases. Implicit in the "frivolous lawsuits" characterization is the belief that injured people don't really deserve to get a hearing in court. Doctors never make mistakes, after all. Products are never defective.
But the questions nobody ever answers- they're busy waving their pom-poms for their business clients- include these: how do you identify a frivolous lawsuit? How many of those identified don't go to trial? Of those that result in verdicts or settlements, how much do those results force up insurance rates annually? How much gets paid out on policies versus how much insurers pay to never settle? Why do certain professional classes get the legislature to hold its thumb on the scale to give them the advantage in what's supposed to be a fair fight in the courtroom? How many jobs will tort reform create from the savings- not to docs or other professional or businesses- but by their insurance carriers?
Tort reform water carriers are paid not to make serious, data-supported arguments, but just to play little mini Frank Luntzes, testing words for the campaign cycle that now knows no end.
The consultant/blogger doing the cheerleading says if you have a car wreck and aren't wearing a seat belt you don't deserve squat. It's an easy, but empty, claim. The courts already know how to deal with this- it's called comparative negligence and the jury can subtract a percentage they think's appropriate to punish bad behavior.
"Tort reform" is, regrettably, the end, rather than the beginning, of a serious discussion about liability and equity in the court system. Like Ronald Reagan's mythic welfare queens in Cadillacs- or the Georgia legislator who wants to make it law that raped women are not victims but "accusers"- it's an empty vessel people just pour stuff into. Tort reform advocates are only serious about cow-towing to the business interests that give them money and help them keep their sinecures in Columbia.
If tort reform brings down costs, why do costs keep going up? Why will businesses suddenly be seized by a socialist urge to reduce their profits and pass the tort reform savings along to customers. Will there be tort reform sales along the lines of the Presidents' Day Sale?
The welfare and rights of individuals is of no particular interest. Making the courts the preserve of monied interests means the legislature might as well mandate hanging signs over courthouse entrances reading, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here and are not corporations or LLCs".
But it's a central tenet of South Carolina's outdated economic, textile industry development policies: bring us a factory and we'll give you land, shift your taxes to the people you hire, and guarantee that you can treat your workers like crap because what else are they going to go for work, being undereducated and in counties with bad schools and crumbling infrastructure- and if they do find a lawyer to take their case for being injured on the job, the legislature will do its best to make sure they lose in court and get no unemployment or disability benefits.
I've written before about how this consultant/blogger's desire for fame, fees and proximity to power seems to overwhelm any moral sense he might have, not to mention a powerful intellect being squandered in thrall to interests who are getting talent, boot licking and 19th century economic ambitions realized on the cheap.
Some things not even weekday carousing and Sunday School Bapieties can cure.
No comments:
Post a Comment