I agree, Sarah. Actually both parties are routinely irresponsible with our money and the national budget. But Bush and at least some of his colleagues have departed from traditional fiscal discipline. This is also a time of major historical realignment. In the days after the 9/11 attacks, as government spoke of responding to the domestic and global security challenges/terrorism, I realized (and others did too)that what our federal gov’mt was talking about was a massive diversion of national resources of every type from people to money to industries to try to create security for our country and secondarily for other countries. SImilar to what we had to do to fight and win WW II. Unfortunately, Bush seems a little spending crazy anyway — which is not good for our long-term security and standards of living.
In Texas “tort reform” equates to eliminating civil resonsibilty for an entity’s (either a person or corporation) negligent or intentional misconduct. Those who commit crimes are prosecuted by the state. If one is not required to answer for their misdeeds their is no reason to refrain from being negligent or not acting in a reasonable prudent manner.
Don, your comment acutally supports the idea of tort reform from a federal level — it would hopefully be controlling across all states/jurisdictions.
There are many stupidities on both sides of the issue and the related attempts at reform. We could point out absurdities or injustices on both sides all day long. The challenge is to think and see in fine grays, not only in black and white.
I think there should always be the opportunity for civil penalties alongside of or in place of criminal penalties.
However, there is also clearly a culture of victimization that needs to be changed. Paying $170k+ to the old lady who put the McDOnald’s coffes between her legs in a moving car is stupid and unfair. She was stupid, no matter how hot the coffee was. Yet her lapse of reason was rewarded (I don’t recall if it was appealed or the judgment was reduced. Maybe it was).
People are people. People abuse others, directly or hiding behind corporate walls. But plaintiffs and plaintiff attys also abuse. Both types eat at the health of our common society; both are destructive. Thus the need for reform nationally — whether by each state or federally.
The only tort reform needed is to educiate the public, potential jurors, every injury does not require monitary recovery. Beginning in the late 1950’s plantiff attornies and the judicary began insisting all injury required monitary payment, regardless of fault. The court adopted restatement of torts, comparative negligence and strict liability insuring greater potential recovery. The ripple effect has evolved to what we have today. If it continues, it will ultimately bankrupt industry. Receiving an injury means windfall profit. As tort payments increase, insurance liability premiums increase to the point they are no longer affordable by either the individual or industry. Tort reform today is only a bandaid to slow the bleeding rather then to stop it.
Without courts like the 9th we wouldn’t have any civil liberties in a very few years.
Tort reform will not stop companies from behaving irresponsibly with their products RE: Vioxx, Fords Pinto etc etc etc.
Doctors need to be self policing and pull the license of the irresponsible.
Roger: I really don’t think we need the 9th Court to protect our civil liberties. Frankly, I think the 9th Court is an embarrassment to our Judical system in general, and they are part of why California just made the list of Judicial Hellholes — see todays (or Friday’s?) article adding Los Angeles, CA to the list. When outrageous settlements are given by any court, it is still you and I that eventually have to pay, one way or another. And it seems to me the primary civil rights being protected are those vested in those attorneys who pursue same but are really only interested in feeding their egos and/or pocketbook.
I am a personal injury and medical negligence attorney, but far from a millionaire – I owe $200,000 in student loans combined with those of a physician, my husband (we are both young in our careers). We both support the civil justice system that our country is based upon and oppose tort reform, especially caps on non-economic damages, which usually harms the elderly and housewives the most.
I do what I do because a physician killed my aunt (who was 20-years old) due to gross negligence in 1968. She was my mom’s only sister and my dad is an only child, so I never had aunts, unlces, or cousins. Physicians owe a duty to all their patients to comply with the standard of care, which is a MINIMUM standard. In the event that they ignore or deviate from the standard of care, they must be accountable in some way. Most Republicans place great value on accountability. Unfortunately, physicians are not disciplined and usually mainatin privilieges at hospitals after bad outcomes, i.e., death or permanent injury. If these physicians continue to practice, we are all at risk. A small number of physicians is responsible for a large margin of error. Do you want you or a loved one to be treated by such a physician?
People are always shocked that my husband would marry a trial lawyer. The funny thing is that I care about people as much as he does and we often work together to help one another with our clients and patients. The true enemy is the insurance industry, not the physicians and attorneys. Of course the Bush administration supports the insurance industry – they spend a lot of money on political campaigns.
Adrienne – you have a long way to go and much wisdom to gain. 10, maybe even 5 years from now if you read you’re message you will probably be embarrassed about the way you have articulated your point of view. Hopefully in time, your priorities will re-align themselves and you will refrain from exposing yourself to the extent you have done here.
Jim: Thank you for taking the time to write re: Adrienne. You expressed my thoughts, too. As an insurance professional for about 38 years, I am continually amazed at how “insurance” gets the blame by the clueless and naive. Bill
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I agree, Sarah. Actually both parties are routinely irresponsible with our money and the national budget. But Bush and at least some of his colleagues have departed from traditional fiscal discipline. This is also a time of major historical realignment. In the days after the 9/11 attacks, as government spoke of responding to the domestic and global security challenges/terrorism, I realized (and others did too)that what our federal gov’mt was talking about was a massive diversion of national resources of every type from people to money to industries to try to create security for our country and secondarily for other countries. SImilar to what we had to do to fight and win WW II. Unfortunately, Bush seems a little spending crazy anyway — which is not good for our long-term security and standards of living.
In Texas “tort reform” equates to eliminating civil resonsibilty for an entity’s (either a person or corporation) negligent or intentional misconduct. Those who commit crimes are prosecuted by the state. If one is not required to answer for their misdeeds their is no reason to refrain from being negligent or not acting in a reasonable prudent manner.
Don, your comment acutally supports the idea of tort reform from a federal level — it would hopefully be controlling across all states/jurisdictions.
There are many stupidities on both sides of the issue and the related attempts at reform. We could point out absurdities or injustices on both sides all day long. The challenge is to think and see in fine grays, not only in black and white.
I think there should always be the opportunity for civil penalties alongside of or in place of criminal penalties.
However, there is also clearly a culture of victimization that needs to be changed. Paying $170k+ to the old lady who put the McDOnald’s coffes between her legs in a moving car is stupid and unfair. She was stupid, no matter how hot the coffee was. Yet her lapse of reason was rewarded (I don’t recall if it was appealed or the judgment was reduced. Maybe it was).
People are people. People abuse others, directly or hiding behind corporate walls. But plaintiffs and plaintiff attys also abuse. Both types eat at the health of our common society; both are destructive. Thus the need for reform nationally — whether by each state or federally.
The only tort reform needed is to educiate the public, potential jurors, every injury does not require monitary recovery. Beginning in the late 1950’s plantiff attornies and the judicary began insisting all injury required monitary payment, regardless of fault. The court adopted restatement of torts, comparative negligence and strict liability insuring greater potential recovery. The ripple effect has evolved to what we have today. If it continues, it will ultimately bankrupt industry. Receiving an injury means windfall profit. As tort payments increase, insurance liability premiums increase to the point they are no longer affordable by either the individual or industry. Tort reform today is only a bandaid to slow the bleeding rather then to stop it.
McDonalds won the lawsuit, they only paid legal fees.
Without courts like the 9th we wouldn’t have any civil liberties in a very few years.
Tort reform will not stop companies from behaving irresponsibly with their products RE: Vioxx, Fords Pinto etc etc etc.
Doctors need to be self policing and pull the license of the irresponsible.
Roger: I really don’t think we need the 9th Court to protect our civil liberties. Frankly, I think the 9th Court is an embarrassment to our Judical system in general, and they are part of why California just made the list of Judicial Hellholes — see todays (or Friday’s?) article adding Los Angeles, CA to the list. When outrageous settlements are given by any court, it is still you and I that eventually have to pay, one way or another. And it seems to me the primary civil rights being protected are those vested in those attorneys who pursue same but are really only interested in feeding their egos and/or pocketbook.
I am a personal injury and medical negligence attorney, but far from a millionaire – I owe $200,000 in student loans combined with those of a physician, my husband (we are both young in our careers). We both support the civil justice system that our country is based upon and oppose tort reform, especially caps on non-economic damages, which usually harms the elderly and housewives the most.
I do what I do because a physician killed my aunt (who was 20-years old) due to gross negligence in 1968. She was my mom’s only sister and my dad is an only child, so I never had aunts, unlces, or cousins. Physicians owe a duty to all their patients to comply with the standard of care, which is a MINIMUM standard. In the event that they ignore or deviate from the standard of care, they must be accountable in some way. Most Republicans place great value on accountability. Unfortunately, physicians are not disciplined and usually mainatin privilieges at hospitals after bad outcomes, i.e., death or permanent injury. If these physicians continue to practice, we are all at risk. A small number of physicians is responsible for a large margin of error. Do you want you or a loved one to be treated by such a physician?
People are always shocked that my husband would marry a trial lawyer. The funny thing is that I care about people as much as he does and we often work together to help one another with our clients and patients. The true enemy is the insurance industry, not the physicians and attorneys. Of course the Bush administration supports the insurance industry – they spend a lot of money on political campaigns.
Adrienne – you have a long way to go and much wisdom to gain. 10, maybe even 5 years from now if you read you’re message you will probably be embarrassed about the way you have articulated your point of view. Hopefully in time, your priorities will re-align themselves and you will refrain from exposing yourself to the extent you have done here.
Jim: Thank you for taking the time to write re: Adrienne. You expressed my thoughts, too. As an insurance professional for about 38 years, I am continually amazed at how “insurance” gets the blame by the clueless and naive. Bill