Loading ...
Sensible Tort Reform
Law, National Politics Comments
From time to time I’ve mentioned that I’m a general opponent of tort reform. This basic opposition, however, does not mean that there are no improvements that could be made to the legal system.
This FOXNews.com Story outlines a couple of good changes to the system:
- “Under the legislation, class-action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.”
This is just sensible. There are attorneys who forum shop. While forum shopping is sometimes a good thing, it becomes bad in mass torts because attorneys seek out potential class members from a particular state-court jursidiction because of its perceived “plaintiff-friendliness.” This puts an end to the practice of finding a single class member for jurisdictional purposes in mass torts by removing the case to federal courts. Notice that this provision does NOT end forum shopping. It only says that federal courts are the only courts with jurisdiction in these cases unless you can round up a large number of plaintiffs in a certain jurisdiction.
- The bill also would limit lawyers’ fees in settlements where plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements. The measure links the fees to the coupon’s redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.
Here’s another common sense measure. Make the benefit of a class action suit be in cash or make the fees paid to the plaintiff’s attorneys be linked to something sensible, like hours worked or how many of the coupons are redeemed.
And yet in the face of these common sense measures, here are how the Democrats have responded:
- “It’s the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “And these people are saying that your state isn’t smart enough, your jurors aren’t smart enough” to hear those cases.
- “The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens,” said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.
Well, they’re both wrong. What is being said is that there has to be some sensible fit between a particular jurisdiction and the suits that get filed there. If you file the case in federal court the jury pool is not bussed in from some other part of the country. What is being said is that there has to be an actual benefit to class members before attorneys can expect to reap their huge fees.
None of what is being said is that people or states are too stupid to hear cases. No one is saying that the rights of corporations and organizations are more important than the rights of the individual citizen.
Even for someone who is generally opposed to tort reform these measures are just common sense. And welcome.
MickC @ February 21, 2005