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