The Truth Behind the Myths That Supposedly Justify Tort Reform
26 Jul 2007
By Attorney Matthew Noyes
Some claim that someone with whiplash or soft tissue injuries could not be hurt. Others feel that people who make a claim for injuries are faking it and trying to "milk the system." Furthermore, we have all read stories of overcrowded courts, runaway jury verdicts, the need for caps on damages and the claim that lawsuits are crippling the economy because manufacturers refuse to develop on products. Are they right?
No! They are absolutely wrong! Nevertheless, many others are quick to jump on the bandwagon and blame injured persons (like yourself and those you know) and lawyers (like myself) on the apparent demise of the legal system. However, it is important that we start arming ourselves with the truth behind their misleading claims about the need for "tort reform." Then, our efforts can continue to make new lives for those devastated by injuries and we can force the insurance industry to listen to the voices of the injured; to keep our laws and courts protecting the injured persons instead of big businesses' wallet.
This article focuses on the truth behind several common misleading myths the insurance companies and big businesses want the public to believe in order to justify a need for "tort reform." Knowing and sharing the truth with others will allow everyone to make informed decisions as to whether drastic changes are necessary in our laws affecting injured persons.
Myth #1: Personal Injury lawsuits are clogging the courts, causing too many lawsuits.
This statement is false. According to the National Center for State Courts, there is no evidence that the number of personal injury lawsuits is increasing. In a recent report based on data from 16,000 trial courts in 50 states, the Center concluded that "the bottom line is that there is no evidence of a tort litigation 'explosion.'"
Furthermore, the number of civil cases (which include personal injury lawsuits) increased more slowly than other types of cases. Between 1984 and 1996, civil lawsuits increased by 31% compared to criminal filings which increased by 41%. In addition, juvenile filings increased by 64% and domestic relations filings increased by 74%!
The real culprit clogging the courts is business litigation. According to the National Center for State Courts, contract cases and property cases--most of which involve businesses--comprise more than one-third of all civil cases in state court. In addition, the Wall Street Journal noted that businesses suing each other over contract disputes comprised the single largest category of lawsuits filed in federal courts.
Certainly, it is not personal injury lawsuits clogging our courtrooms. We must make sure that everyone appreciates and knows that laws should not be changed to deny the injured person access to their day in court.
Myth #2: Injured victims are filing frivolous lawsuits.
When so-called frivolous lawsuits are examined, it becomes clear that most are anything but frivolous. In fact, they often accomplish a great deal by bringing about measurable safety improvements or exposing customer fraud.
The McDonald's coffee case is often termed "frivolous", but a fair reading of the record in that case would show that the critics are incorrect. There are numerous other examples of how injured victims have forced safety improvements in cars, tractors, children's pajamas, drugs, and other products.
When the discussion of frivolous lawsuits is raised, ask yourself what you think about the following cases involving businesses suing businesses and not injured victims seeking responsibility and accountability:
Hormel Foods, the maker of the luncheon meat SPAM, sued Jim Henson Productions to stop the company from merchandising a movie character named "Spa'am." Hormel claimed that the character represented "an unclean grotesque boar" that would call into question the purity of its meats. They claimed that SPAM sales would drop if the product was linked with "evil in porcine form." After a full trial, a federal judge rejected Hormel's claim. Hormel appealed, but again lost.
Scott Paper's Canadian division sued Procter & Gamble in 1995, alleging it had exaggerated the performance of its Bounty towels by comparing an 11-inch long Bounty sheet with the 9-inch sheet generally used in Canada.
Any legislation sought by tort "reformers" would not effect lawsuits like these. But family and friends killed or injured might be left without any rights if they cannot hold the wrongdoers accountable and responsible for their actions.
Conclusion
Help spread the truth about these myths and do your part to make sure that injured victims do not lose their rights to hold the wrongdoer responsible and accountable for their careless actions.
