[Bryan]

should we have tort reform? should we limit the amound one can receive in punitive damages? why or why not?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Bryan

should we have tort reform? should we limit the amound one can receive in punitive damages? why or why not?

I believe we should, because I don't think anybody should get millions of dollars in punitve damages because they spilled hot coffee on their lap.

[adamwagg]

From a completly unknowledable position outside the states, I think you should, but only because we hear crazy stories over here about how much some people get for really stupid things. Of course they could all be untrue rumour.

[JerryLove]

should we have tort reform? should we limit the amound one can receive in punitive damages? why or why not?

No, we should not. But punative damages should not be collected by the plaintiff.

Instead, punative damages can fund recompensitory funds against defendants without the abiliy to pay. Any left-over can be kept as governmental income and offset the need to tax.

I believe we should, because I don't think anybody should get millions of dollars in punitve damages because they spilled hot coffee on their lap.

No, they should get recompensitory damages comparable to their pain and suffering and real associated bills.

The reason I don't want a hard limit on punative damages is because it's unequally spread. Imagine I put it a $10,000,000 dollars. This is chump-change for a class-action suit against GM, but untennable to a guy that builds custom bikes.

What we need are clearer and more direct guidelines for determining awards and punishments, and to decouple the punitive damages from the pay-out. Your actual loss has nothing to do with the size of the company that caused it.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

punative damages should not be collected by the plaintiff.

this i agree with

Instead, punative damages can fund recompensitory funds against defendants without the abiliy to pay. Any left-over can be kept as governmental income and offset the need to tax.

so the punitive damages would go back to the people instead of an individual person? Perhaps we should set up a trust fund that is funded by punitive damages to pay for education, healthcare, welfare, etc.

No, they should get recompensitory damages comparable to their pain and suffering and real associated bills.

well real associated bills is easy, "what you did cost me $100,000", therefore you get $100,000 to pay for those bills. What about health insurance. Let's say I get sick because some company is disposing nuclear wasted into the creek behind my house. And my health insurance pays for almost all of my medical bills and I am only out of pocket about $2500 (that's my max out-of-pocket expenses w/ my insurance). Should I get the full $100,000 or only the $2500. If only the $2500 should the insurance company get the rest?

The reason I don't want a hard limit on punative damages is because it's unequally spread. Imagine I put it a $10,000,000 dollars. This is chump-change for a class-action suit against GM, but untennable to a guy that builds custom bikes.

that's a good point, i never thought about this. what about a percentage based number. Say 25% max of a company's annual revenue or a person's annual income. That way there is a limit, but it varies based on who is being sued.

What we need are clearer and more direct guidelines for determining awards and punishments, and to decouple the punitive damages from the pay-out. Your actual loss has nothing to do with the size of the company that caused it.

I agree. A large part of the high health insurance costs is law suits. It's not the only reason, I realize that. But if doctors didn't have to pay an exorbitant amount of malpractice insurance, wouldn't that make health care more affordable?

What other ways do you think we should reform the tort system?

[JerryLove]

so the punitive damages would go back to the people instead of an individual person? Perhaps we should set up a trust fund that is funded by punitive damages to pay for education, healthcare, welfare, etc.

I disagree. I think that the first, best, use of the extra money is to ensure that compensitory damages can be collected by the injured even if the party in question is unable to pay.

Money beyond that goes into the general pool to pay govrenmental costs (wheather the one's you listed or not).

well real associated bills is easy, "what you did cost me $100,000", therefore you get $100,000 to pay for those bills. What about health insurance. Let's say I get sick because some company is disposing nuclear wasted into the creek behind my house. And my health insurance pays for almost all of my medical bills and I am only out of pocket about $2500 (that's my max out-of-pocket expenses w/ my insurance). Should I get the full $100,000 or only the $2500. If only the $2500 should the insurance company get the rest?

The health company should be reembursed for what it paid, you should be reembursed for what you paid... as well as lost income. That's "real bills".

that's a good point, i never thought about this. what about a percentage based number. Say 25% max of a company's annual revenue or a person's annual income. That way there is a limit, but it varies based on who is being sued.

I lack eough experience / information on the matter to put a real number in there. I don't know it would be reasonabe or not to put in a percentage. My first instinct is that it would simply encouragee "creative accounting".

I agree. A large part of the high health insurance costs is law suits. It's not the only reason, I realize that.

Insurance companies make huge profits. There's a great deal of the money. They also face huge fraud, another problem. Nucience lawsuits are a third.

Bring these three things down, and let's see where we stand.

But if doctors didn't have to pay an exorbitant amount of malpractice insurance, wouldn't that make health care more affordable?

If I didn't have to pay so much in car insurance, my vehicle would be more affordable too.

Of course, if the medical industry would do better policing of itself, there would be less legitemate cases of mal-practice and gross incompitence. They should function like most high-risk industries (say "pilot") and are trying to move in that direction.

What other ways do you think we should reform the tort system?

1. Better systems for removing bad staff (stop hiring doctors that lost their license in another state (heck, nationalize the system)).
2. More checks and balances (such as a "pre surgery checklist", they are just not impamenting)
3. More standardization (some doctors make the limb that needs to be operated on, others mark the one to avoid).
4. Better oversite (police now record stops, doctors should record surgeries).
5. Arbitration that can remove and punish obviously fraudlent lawsuits.
6. Better standards for awards.

Did you know that what many nurses will train one another is "if you make a mistake, don't put it on the chart... that way you can't get in trouble"?

Of course, it makes it hard to fix the mistake, and impossable to fix the cause of the mistake. The entire culture of the medical field is wrong.

[Brandon]

Of course, if the medical industry would do better policing of itself, there would be less legitemate cases of mal-practice and gross incompitence. They should function like most high-risk industries (say "pilot") and are trying to move in that direction.

haha. well said. The only way I can see tort reform working, is based percentage-wise on the value of the person/company. Thus, hurting a multi-million dollar company, but not exceeding a limit.
understand? or not?