Skip banner
HomeSourcesHow Do I?Site MapHelp
Return To Search FormFOCUS
Search Terms: tort, reform

Document ListExpanded ListKWICFULL format currently displayed

Previous Document Document 57 of 57.

Copyright 1999 The Tribune Co. Publishes The Tampa Tribune  
The Tampa Tribune

January 23, 1999, Saturday, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NATION/WORLD, Pg. 14

LENGTH: 655 words

HEADLINE: Striking a balance in tort reform;


BODY:


The debate over reform of the civil justice system is frequently framed as a war between trial  lawyers and big business, the benevolent protectors of the powerless against the faceless power of  industry.

But lawyers are not so noble and business is not evil incarnate, and trying to balance their  interests is a complicated and divisive issue, as we have seen during legislative sessions for most  of this decade. Last year the Legislature passed a reform measure that Gov. Lawton Chiles vetoed.  This spring, with a Republican majority in both houses and a new governor in power, we expect to  see another attempt to reform the civil justice process, and this time we are likely to see a  change in the law. Business groups say that tort reform is needed to corral a legal system out of control, that  frivolous lawsuits are crippling all businesses, large and small, leaving average citizens in legal  jeopardy.

Consumer groups respond that there is no crisis and that the rules developed to protect the  public are just fine. Indeed, for every ridiculous lawsuit we read about, many more with legitimate  complaints are filed with the courts.

What we want from our lawmakers is common sense. They will not be forsaking consumers by  supporting fair changes in the law that happen to be good for businesses. But in reaching out to  business, they must find a way to ensure justice for the people hurt by the products of industry.

It appeared last session that legislators were moving in the right direction, that maybe they  had found that elusive balance. But in their last days in Tallahassee, they stuffed the bill with  measures that would have been unfair to the public.

We like what legislators tried to do with the unfair "joint and several liability" law under  which people or businesses with only remote links to a case can be forced to pick up the tab for  those more at fault but not able to pay. The rule may be superficially appealing because it  increases the probability that a worthy plaintiff will be taken care of, but it is inherently wrong  to force a person or company that had only limited responsibility in an accident to pay the full  cost. Lawmakers struck a good balance with their attempt to cap at $ 300,000 the damages any person  or company less than 25 percent at fault would be required to pay.

We also applauded lawmakers' attempts to lessen the liability of landowners who are sued by  injured trespassers. Neither an intruder nor the kid taking a shortcut across your yard should be  allowed to sue for injuries caused on property to which he was not invited.

But other provisions of the bill were not defensible. It would have prevented lawsuits against  companies for injuries caused by products more than 12 years old. Too many products, such as  elevators and escalators, have long lives. And with the huge variety of new products introduced  daily, it would be unwise to fix a time limit under which a person can sue.

The Legislature's attempts to rein in punitive damage awards also died with the bill. Punitive  damages are meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing; they are not supposed to make an  injured plaintiff whole. It is a legitimate question to ask whether such damages should go as a  windfall to a plaintiff who has already been compensated for his actual injury.

Some pundits have argued that because punitive damages are like a fine imposed for bad behavior,  maybe they should be treated as such and paid over to the state.

Whatever ultimately happens in the upcoming session, we know lawmakers have important decisions  to make amid the lobbying of two powerful interest groups. In the end, they must not grant  businesses blanket exemptions from responsibility. At the same time, they must not craft laws in  the name of consumer protection whose primary beneficiary is the plaintiff's lawyer.

NOTES: EDITORIALS

LOAD-DATE: January 24, 1999




Previous Document Document 57 of 57.


FOCUS

Search Terms: tort, reform
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase:
   
About LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic Universe Terms and Conditions Top of Page
Copyright © 2001, LEXIS-NEXIS®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.