I agree that the odds of this kind of true tort reform being passed into law would be very remote due to the lobbying that the tort lawyers would do, and businesses would do, and probably even groups who advocate for 'victims rights'. But the fact that all three of these groups have something to lose suggests to me that this solution is the right one. The only people who have anything to gain from it are the average citizens who aren't the ones suing to get rich, aren't the business owners who could face higher punative damages, and aren't the lawyers who win no matter who loses.
How about this idea instead....Let's change the legal system so that there are no limits placed on punitive damages, but let's also change it so that the plaintiffs and their lawyers don't receive those punitive damages. Instead, let's set up a system where 50% of the punitive damages would go to a charity of the plaintiffs choice, and the other 50% would go to a charity of the defendants choice. The plaintiffs would only receive the actual damages that are required to 'make them whole'. This would keep defendants on the hook for negligence, malpractice, discrimination, etc., but it would also lead to fewer frivolous lawsuits by people hoping to get rich off of the punitive damage awards
How about this idea....No specific caps on actual or punative damages...but the plaintiff can only receive an amount equal to the actual damages. Any punative damages awarded by the judge or jury would have to be split 50/50 between two recognized charities of the plaintiff's and defendant's choice. This would still allow a plaintiff to be made whole, and it would still punish the defendant beyond a slap on the wrist. But it would also limit the number of frivilous lawsuits, since a plaintiff and his lawyer would no longer have the chance to 'get rich' off the punitive damages.
Congratulations to the Lady Comets!!!!!
Last login: Thursday, April 21, 2011
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.