• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Governors of Texas, South Carolina sign tort reform into law

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline) - Texas Gov. Rick Perry was in Houston Wednesday for the ceremonial signing of a new law that will implement a loser-pays system for frivolous lawsuits filed in the state.

According to The Associated Press , Perry was joined by area Republicans in touting the new law.

The governor had designated the issue as an emergency item during this legislative session.

"House Bill 274 provides defendants and judges with a variety of tools that will cut down on frivolous claims in Texas," Perry said in a statement in May.

"This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs."
LegalNewsline | Governors of Texas, South Carolina sign tort reform into law

BOOYAH! Proud day for the Citizens of the Lone Star State (And South Carolina too )
 
More immunity to corporations, just what America needs.

Now if you sue a corporation (which is already hard enough to do successfully), you could stand to lose everything if you don't win your case.

Crazy.
 
I don't think anyone is against tort reform.. I think where the issue lies is how you implement it.. Take the loser pays portion.. If the loser has no money?? What then?? There is still no guarantee for the state.. I also think that the loser must also lose on appeal before he is liable to pay anything.. Leaving it all to one judge is an invitation to corruption.. I think in any case there should always be an option for a 2nd opinion.. To just call it frivolous law suit and end it is quite stupid.. Again, it should at least get an appeal if the person bringing the case wants it.. Otherwise you will have the judge dismissing cases and then out playing golf the next day with the defendents.. There is a reason that Judge ruled in favor of BP oil.. It wasn't because of the evidence.. It was because the judge was invested in oil..

Judge in oil spill case sells energy stocks - Disaster in the Gulf - msnbc.com

I think tort reform is a good thing.. I think that is a bad policy and it doesn't suprise me that Texas and South Carolina did it.. I am also not sure if that law will stand up in federal court either.. And the line about making Texas more attractive to employers is a crap load of cow pies.. Mainly because any federal court can hear malpractice suit as a violation of the federal patient bill of rights or a Heppa violation.. Which of course renders this new law moot and irrelevent.. Not that conservatives think of such things..
 
More immunity to corporations, just what America needs.

Now if you sue a corporation (which is already hard enough to do successfully), you could stand to lose everything if you don't win your case.

Crazy.

Exactly, I feel sorry for the people of Texas, and S.Carolina.
 
More immunity to corporations, just what America needs.

Now if you sue a corporation (which is already hard enough to do successfully), you could stand to lose everything if you don't win your case.

Crazy.

Or if you sue someone it better be a good case instead of hoping the cost of the litigation is more then a payout for free $$
 
Or if you sue someone it better be a good case instead of hoping the cost of the litigation is more then a payout for free $$

It doesn't matter if it's a "good case" or not. Corporations can hire entire legal teams. If you're a customer that they've genuinely screwed, you are likely to get double screwed.

This is business protectionism and nothing more. I smell cronyism here. No law like this gets passed in Texas without a nice bonus from lobbying groups.

Outrageous.
 
What exactly is a "frivolous" claim anyways?
 
Or if you sue someone it better be a good case instead of hoping the cost of the litigation is more then a payout for free $$

Now??? Can you write that sentence in a way that it actually makes sense?? There are very few cases where the cost of litigation is more than the damages sought.. Most companies don't settle because of cost.. They settle because of PR.. When was the last time we say BP in the news?? They still haven't paid for much of anything.. They still owe countless people damages for their negligence.. Another point your missing is that in many cases, it is cheaper to settle than it is to actually fix the problem..

Tort reform should limit some things.. But it still needs to hold doctors and hospitals accountable for their negligence.. What would you do if you went to the hospital for an appendectomy, which is the operation to have your appendix removed.. But instead you had an AVR or Aortic Valve Replacement, which is open heart surgery?? How much is that mistake worth?? Or lets just say that you were given the wrong perscription for something and you died.. How much is your family allowed to recieve over your death?? Do you want someone putting a price tag on your life??

I agree with a mechanism that helps stop and prevent frivolous laws suits.. But on the same tolken, doctors, hospitals, or whomever should be held responsible for their mistakes.. The amount they pay for said mistakes should also be enough to encourage change and steps to not let these mistakes repeat themselves..

How much are you worth Viccio?? Give me a number?? How much are you worth to your family?? Do you have any experience in dealing with hospitals or malpractice??

Hospital tried to silence whistleblower; up to 1,000 patients may have died from negligence

This is why you have to be so careful with Tort reform.. Who are you protecting?? The patient or the hospital?? If your not protecting the patient then you are on the wrong side of things..

Patient Dies of Medication Overdose Due to Hospital Negligence :: Pennsylvania Personal Injury Blog

Surgeon found negligent in patient death - Redlands Daily Facts

Patient dies due to negligence of docs Lastupdate:- Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com

The list goes on and on and on.. How much are their lives worth?? Are they worth more than yours??
 
You take a sip of hot coffee and burn your tongue so you sue McDonalds.. The person that did that actually won and got damages, and now on the bottom of their cups is the message 'The beverage you are about to enjoy is hot.'..

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$640,000 for being a dufus when it comes to drinking a hot cup of jo..

Not quite true, she spilled it on her lap, had 3rd degree burns, had to have skin grafted, and had over 10 grand in medical expenses. That case is a little more complex then people give it credit for. The quality of the lid, and the temp of the coffee played a big role in the case.

Recently watched a documentary detailing the case
 
LegalNewsline | Governors of Texas, South Carolina sign tort reform into law

BOOYAH! Proud day for the Citizens of the Lone Star State (And South Carolina too )

OMG liberals will go nuts over this … just imagine .. frivolous law suits may actually be thrown out, and those filing such suits might actually have to pay for the others legal fees … how terrible can you get .. I mean lawyers that will take any case might actually find out the facts and rules of law before taking a case. There will be no more oh I broke a nail .. I want 50,000 and the lawyer telling them .. but look .. it's all the way down to the quick it's worth 100,000 just for them to settle and save their legal fees ..

Then just think of the other horror … why insurance premiums might drop a couple of bucks a month and we weren't able to tax them good for nothing rich bastards for it .. oh the injustice of it all .
 
Not quite true, she spilled it on her lap, had 3rd degree burns, had to have skin grafted, and had over 10 grand in medical expenses. That case is a little more complex then people give it credit for. The quality of the lid, and the temp of the coffee played a big role in the case.

Recently watched a documentary detailing the case

yep your right ... it's perfectly the proper thing to do .. to stick a cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving . now you can't text .. but you can risk spilling coffee all over yourself .. because as anyone that has ever done it knows .. that you will never take your eyes off the road when you spill something all over yourself . and of course those built in cup holders in cars now a days .. why they are just there for Decorative purposes anyway .. not to put a cup of coffee in them .
 
Last edited:
Lets review real quick. Most of the unions, public and private, have slowly been pushed out; Citizen's United was passed, allowing anonymous Corporate donations to political candidates; and now in some states, probably more in the future, it will be near impossible to sue the health care industry, one of the largest in the country.

Does anyone else see a pattern here that maybe we should examine?
 
Not quite true, she spilled it on her lap, had 3rd degree burns, had to have skin grafted, and had over 10 grand in medical expenses. That case is a little more complex then people give it credit for. The quality of the lid, and the temp of the coffee played a big role in the case.

Recently watched a documentary detailing the case

Well.. I still believe the case was frivolous.. She was wearing sweat pants which made it worse and that was out of McDonalds control.. She also removed the lid to add cream and stuff.. So it was all her fault really..

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11]

I fail to see how McDonald's is liable for that.. She was stupid for attempting to put condiments in her coffee while in the car.. She could have asked the drive thru person to do it for her.. They had no control over what kind of clothes she was wearing.. The quality of lid is irrelevent when you take it off..
 
It doesn't matter if it's a "good case" or not. Corporations can hire entire legal teams. If you're a customer that they've genuinely screwed, you are likely to get double screwed.

This is business protectionism and nothing more. I smell cronyism here. No law like this gets passed in Texas without a nice bonus from lobbying groups.

Outrageous.


And without it, all you need to do is file some half assed case, and hold out for a pay out. Companies spend big bucks fighting BS lawsuits. this helps them, while keeping it open for legit complaints to be handled properly.
 
HOW THE TEST WAS WON
Back in 1977, Texas enacted the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, limiting noneconomic damages to $500,000, plus cost-of-living increases.* These increases eventually raised the cap to about $1.3 million.
The Texas Supreme Court headed off full implementation with a 1988 ruling that made the cap unconstitutional, except in cases of wrongful death. The size of awards for noneconomic damages soon shot up, as did insurance premiums. The state of professional liability was becoming unfriendly, and not just in Texas.
Texas decided to do something about it, and in 2003 legislated another cap on noneconomic liability awards: $250,000 for physicians and $500,000 for institutions. Concerned that the state supreme court would again outlaw a cap, tort reform proponents marshaled forces and pursued a constitutional amendment that would give the legislature, by a three-fifths vote of its members, the right to set limits in liability litigation. Last fall, Texans approved the amendment by a 51% to 49% margin.
Within weeks, liability insurers stepped forward and let it be known that they would reduce premiums. There are reports that Healthcare Indemnity, a large insurer for hospitals, has reduced premiums by 20%. Texas Medical Liability Trust, a large insurer, initially reduced rates by 12%, and then decreased them by another 5%.
GUESS WHO FOUGHT THE LAW
The dust has cleared. These rate reductions establish cause-and-effect between limits on noneconomic damages and stabilization of insurance premiums. The Lone Star State stands as proof.
Who fought the law that made Texas an obstetrician-friendly state? Our good friends in personal injury litigation mounted a spirited and well-funded campaign. The trial lawyers outspent the advocates of tort reform, but did not get the better of them.
As national leaders continue to reason with a US Senate unfriendly to tort reform, state leaders can appeal to voters and legislators to understand and acknowledge that frivolous lawsuits and unjust jackpotstyle awards lead directly to deteriorating access to care. The Texas saga proved that legislation at the state level can create a physician-friendly place to practice.
True grit: A tale of Texas tort reform — OBG Management

Most emergency physicians (EPs) have been sued at least once. According to Protect Patients Now, a tort reform lobbying group, a majority of EPs have been sued at least twice. Medical lawsuit costs have risen dramatically over the past few decades, much faster than overall medical costs. From 1975 to 2000, the Insurance Information Institute reported that medical costs rose 449 percent whereas medical liability costs rose by 1642 percent in this country. Not surprisingly, this increase in litigation inflated medical liability premiums. So much so that in one ACEP study, 95% of EPs reported premium increases in the past several years, and 2 out of 3 faced increases of 60 percent or more. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of claim payments in medical liability cases go to cover noneconomic damages, which are designed to compensate patients for their loss (i.e. lost limb, mental capacity from brain injury, pain and suffering, etc.). Punitive damages, although rarely seen in medical liability cases, are available to punish doctors for egregious behavior while economic damages are designed to compensate patients for lost earnings or medical costs.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed a tort reform bill which included a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for all physicians in a case. That same year the people of Texas approved an amendment to the Texas constitution “Authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on noneconomic damages,” thereby minimizing legal challenges to the legislative bill. The effect of this cap on noneconomic damages has been dramatic. Since 2003, every malpractice insurance carrier in Texas has reduced their premiums for physicians. Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest carrier in Texas has reduced its average premium by over 50%. Claims and lawsuits in most Texas counties have been cut in half. Since tort reform was passed in Texas, the number of newly licensed doctors in Texas went from 2038 in the year before reform to 3621 in 2009. This has presumably had a positive effect on access to care. Charity care rendered by Texas hospitals rose 24% in the 3 years after tort reform, according to the Texas Medical Association. 76 Texas counties have seen a net gain in EPs since the passage of tort reform, including 39 medically underserved counties and 30 counties that are partially underserved.
Tort Reform Shows Positive Results in TX and CA
 
Exactly, I feel sorry for the people of Texas, and S.Carolina.
I think what this is trying to do is stop this nonsense of million dollar payoffs for some one who spills hot coffee on their lap while driving, case in point McDonalds. Now one extreme to the next isn't healthy and this is where I can understand your concern.
 
Lets review real quick. Most of the unions, public and private, have slowly been pushed out; Citizen's United was passed, allowing anonymous Corporate donations to political candidates; and now in some states, probably more in the future, it will be near impossible to sue the health care industry, one of the largest in the country.

Does anyone else see a pattern here that maybe we should examine?

yeah .. yeah .... it's Bush's fault .. . Reagan's fault .. and all the Republican's in between ... if we just went back to the 90% taxation we could pay all those law suits with no problem ..... ohhh but wait .. if we taxed them at 90% those evil rich bastards ... might not be able to pay those law suits .. what a problem guess we better just tax them at 100% and be done with it

That about cover it for ya?
 
According to the US Federal News, every taxpayer in the US is now paying a “lawsuit tax” of around $700 – $800 per year

I'll start off with My favorite .. just showing yet again . What great public servants we have.
Marcy Noriega, a California police officer decided to tase a suspect in the back of her car when he became uncontrollable and started kicking at the windows. Noriega drew her taser from her belt and fired it at the man. Unfortunately for the crook, the officer had accidentally drawn her gun instead, and she shot him in the chest – killing him. The city is now suing the taser company, arguing that any reasonable officer could mistakenly draw and shoot their gun instead of their taser. They are suing for the full costs of the wrongful death lawsuit which the man’s family has filed against the city.

Isn't it a great feeling to know that any reasonable officer of the law …. can't tell the difference between a taser and a real gun ??? Really makes me feel secure in our law enforcement people on the job don't it ?


Robert Lee Brock, a prisoner in Virginia in 1995 wished to be removed from prison and placed in a mental institution. In order to achieve his goal, he decided to sue himself. He claimed that his crime was committed whilst he was drunk, which was a violation of his religious beliefs. He claimed that he had violated his own civil liberties. He sued himself for $5 million but to make matters worse, he claimed that the state should pay as he was behind bars and without an income. Thankfully the case was dismissed and Brock didn’t get his transfer.

Whew … I bet the judge was really torn on this one ..

In 1999, Daniel Dukes, a 27 year old from Florida hatched a clever plot so that he could have his life long dream of swimming with a whale fulfilled. He hid from the security guards at Sea World and managed to stay in the park after closing. Shortly after, he dived into the tank containing a killer whale – fulfilling his dream. Daniel was killed by the whale. His parents proceeded to sue Sea World because they did not display public warnings that the whale (Tillikum) could kill people. They also claim that the whale is wrongly portrayed as friendly because of the stuffed toys sold there.

What ??? you mean they didn't even have signs up stating you swim illegally at your own risk ? How careless of them. Everyone knows that in America now we have to protect criminals from being harmed by their own stupidity.

This is a true case of believe it or not. Christopher Roller, a resident of Minnesota sued David Blaine and David Copperfield – demanding that they reveal their secret magic tricks to him. He demanded 10% of their total income for life. The reason for the suit is that Roller believes that the magicians are defying the laws of physics, and thereby using godly powers. But it gets worse. Roller is suing not just because the magicians are using God’s powers – he is suing because he thinks he*is*God and therefore it is*his*powers they are stealing.
I mean this case has solid merit shouldn't God have copy right infringement law on his side .. and who knows wouldn't you have to prove he wasn't God ??



PETA, the often-insane animal loving organization held an anti-hunt protest in 2001 – defending the rights of deer to live. On they way home from the protest, two members hit a deer which had run on to the highway. The members informed the New Jersey Division of Fish and and Wildlife that they intended to sue for damages and injuries. In their letter they stated that the Division were
responsible for the damages “as a result of their deer management program, which includes, in certain circumstances, an affirmative effort to increase deer population.


What can you say … it's PETA could you expect anything less of them ? Isn't that where they get most of their funding from … sue and settle?

For a while in the 1990s, Anheuser-Busch, the producers of Budweiser, ran a series of ads in which two beautiful women come to life in front of two truck drivers. A Michigan man bought a case of the beer, drank it, and failed to see two women materialize. Cue the lawsuit. He sued the company for false advertising, asking for a sum in excess of $10,000.

Damn I knew a large amount of beer could make ugly women look good … but this ??

We all know that the weather reports are frequently wrong and we take that into account when planning our days, but this was not the case for an Israeli woman who sued a TV station for making an inaccurate prediction. The station predicted good weather but it rained. The woman claimed that the forecast caused her to dress lightly – resulting in her catching the flu, missing a week of work, and spending money on medication. She further claimed that the whole incident caused her stress. She sued for $1,000 – and won.

Ohhh good lord .. now I understand why the weather channel should be pay for view rather then on public tv .. hell they can be sued 50% of the time .. by everyone that watches the weather.
 
Yet another republican right wing assault on the rights of the common working person. I wonder if the language for either bill came from ALEC ? The American 20th century is being dismantled piece by piece and its going to be a new Gilded Age very soon.
 
Yet another republican right wing assault on the rights of the common working person. I wonder if the language for either bill came from ALEC ? The American 20th century is being dismantled piece by piece and its going to be a new Gilded Age very soon.

Good old Haymarket, tootin for the funding source of the left; Trial Lawyers.
 
Good old Haymarket, tootin for the funding source of the left; Trial Lawyers.

Demonizing lawyers who defend the rights of average people when no other will step up to the plate --- yup , the Radical Warriors of the Right are still on message.
 
Ahh the Texas GOP.. screwing people over since the last century!
 
Demonizing lawyers who defend the rights of average people when no other will step up to the plate --- yup , the Radical Warriors of the Right are still on message.

If that were the case, I'd be with you, but most often, it is not.

DEFENDING THE LITTLE MAN!
NORWALK -- The family of a Norwalk teenager who was severely injured after being struck by a vehicle on Taylor Avenue on New Year's Eve has sued the city and two property owners near where the accident occurred.

On Jan. 1, 2011, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Teanna Escourse, 16, was walking home from a New Year's Eve party at a private residence in South Norwalk when she was forced to leave the sidewalk and enter the southbound traffic lane, because the sidewalk and roadway shoulder abutting 100 Taylor Ave. were obstructed with several feet of snow, according to the lawsuit filed in Bridgeport Superior Court.

Escourse was struck by an oncoming vehicle that fled the scene and has not been identified despite an investigation by the Norwalk Police Department, according to the lawsuit.

"As a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, the minor plaintiff, Teanna Escourse, was caused to sustain severe and personal injuries to her mind and body," wrote her attorney, Paul L. Brozdowski, of the law offices of Paul L. Brozdowski in Bridgeport. "Teanna Escourse has stable vital signs but her neurological status remains significantly depressed and, upon information and belief, some or all of her injuries and/or the effects thereof are, or are likely to be, permanent."
Injured pedestrian's family sues city, property owners - Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, Weston and Wilton Connecticut News, Sports, Business, Obituaries and Advertising - The Hour - Norwalk's Newspaper

Ya know, she could have... paid attention to traffic?

Last October, Yvette Gorzelany, Joanna Obiedzinski, and Paulina Pakos attempted to sue over their appearance in the book "Hot Chicks with Douchebags." The ladies filed a defamation suit only to have it thrown out by a New Jersey judge in February who ruled it as a work of satire (duh). The judge proved the point further by asking whether a reasonable person could "believe that Jean-Paul Sartre stated 'man is condemned to be douchey because once thrown into the world he is responsible for every douchey thing that he does.'" Yeah, we're with the judge on that one.
The Most Frivolous Lawsuits Of All Time: Blowing Your Mind With Stupidity (PICTURES)

Oregon man Allen Heckard had a unique problem: people constantly told him he looked like basketball star Michael Jordan. Except Heckard saw it a bit differently, Michael Jordan looked like him. Naturally, he decided to sue Jordan and Nike for $832 million for his "emotional pain and suffering." But we thought everyone wanted to "be like Mike"?!
The Most Frivolous Lawsuits Of All Time: Blowing Your Mind With Stupidity (PICTURES)

Usually haunted houses get points for being scary, but in the 2000 case of Cleanthi Peters, scariness got Universal Studios a $15,000 lawsuit. Peters claimed to have suffered "extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress" after visiting the Halloween Horror Nights haunted house. Maybe she could use some of that money to learn what "haunted house" means.
SSAB

We've all wanted to sue an airline for awful food, uncomfortable seats, or longer-than-life wait times, but this couple actually did it. Jerome and Judith O'Callaghan sued American Airlines for $100,000 in 2004 because the leg room was smaller than they expected.
SSAB

In 1995, Robert Glaser entered at unisex bathroom at a Billy Joel/Elton John concert and found not one, but multiple women using urinals in lieu of the toilets. Glaser sued the venue for $5.4 million for his "emotional distress" and lost. At least he got a good story out of it.
SSAB

When Tomas Delgado was driving over the speed limit and hit and killed child on a bike, a loophole got him out of any trouble (the boy was riding at night without safety gear or reflectors). You'd think getting away with murder would be enough, but Delgado decided to sue the family of the boy for damages to his Audi. It's a good thing he later dropped the lawsuit, or we would have lost ALL faith in humanity
SSAB

Standing up for our RIGHTS MAN!

In the summer of 2005, two teen girls in Colorado decided to bake some cookies and share them with their neighbors. Sounds innocent enough, but one neighbor, Wanita Renea Young, was so shocked at the appearance of two 15-year-old girls on her doorstep at 10:30 p.m. that she had an anxiety attack and sued for medical damages. She won $930 for her trip to the emergency room but was denied money for "pain and suffering." You know what really helps with pain and suffering? Cookies!
SSAB


These are cases of frivolous lawsuits that cost us all $$, but you haymarket, are all for them.
 
Yet another republican right wing assault on the rights of the common working person. I wonder if the language for either bill came from ALEC ? The American 20th century is being dismantled piece by piece and its going to be a new Gilded Age very soon.

Naa … it's the 21st century that is being dismantled … and not nearly fast enough … we are trying to get back to the 20th century

you know those traits, personal responsibility, hard work, integrity, and honesty. Unlike those of today, where we whine and cry, that we are Americans and are owed everything …that hard work is for suckers, and we shouldn't have to worry about such mundane things, because we are owed all those things that the generations before us had to work for. In the 21st century we are responsible for nothing, we didn't get good grades it school .. . why it's someone else fault … we couldn't get into a good college because of those grades .. well thats just unfair … it's not my fault, flunked out of college, because the professors didn't like me .. . it wasn't my fault, commit a crime … why of course it societies fault not mine, get out of jail, and it's our jails fault that I can't survive cause they didn't teach me any skills. Now I want SS benefits … I didn't earn them but they are owed to me .. because … will I don't know .. but it wasn't my fault for how I turned out.
 
Back
Top Bottom