Tort Reform

[Larry]

This discussion got started on another thread, but I thought if oughtta be over here.

I keep hearing about a need for tort reform. (I keep hearing about some spectacular cases, but I also know you shouldn't base a policy solely on selected, extreme cases from one end of the spectrum. But, the horror stories do seem, to me, to be plentiful and spectacular enough to make me lean towards the idea that some change seems needed).

One case that seems to get passed around a lot is the "McDonalds coffee cup" case. (Woman awarded $8M punative damages after she poured coffee on herself while removing the lid that was placed there to prevent her from spilling it).

I'll agree with the folks who say this verdict is a problem. But, I'll also say that the problem here is the verdict. Not the fact that she was allowed to bring the suit at all. (Or, that the jury was allowed to make an award that large).

If the situation had been, say, the cup burst in her hand when she grasped it, and they'd proven that McD knew the cup was more fragile than a previous design, but it was cheaper, then I'd say the award would have been correct.

To me, the question is: How do you allow the system to impose a penalty that's big enough for, say, McDonalds to feel punished, but avoid "If you, or anyone you know, has ever had anything bad happen near a nursing home, call . . . "?

The folks who keep pushing for "reform" seem, to me, to be actually pushing "making it illegal for poor people to sue rich defendants". (They want to say that even the situation of the known defective cup, the penalty must be so low the defendant won't notice it. Or, the victim can only go to court if he can pay McDonald's legal department).

Proposed solution:

Since the purpose of punative damages is to punish the defendant (not to create an instant millionaire), create a ceiling (say, three times the actual damages) on the punative amages that go to the defendant (and attourneys, if any). Any damages above that ceiling can still be imposed, but they go into the same fund as other court-imposed fines. (The county treasury, or courthouse expenses, or wherever traffic fines go).

Now, the court still has the ability to punish a defendant (even a very rich one), but the process isn't a lottery for the plaintiffs (and attourneys). (And, if the defendant wants to settle out of court, there's a known ceiling as to how much the plaintiff can get if it goes to trial: The most they can get is four times the actual. Maybe the defendant will offer double the actual to avoid the trial. Or whatever.)