The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Whenever a tort reform proposal is advanced, it is trumpeted as a cure for a problem. When an individual leads the charge, it is usually a politician or industry lobbyist who stands to gain from taking that particular position. Our system is not perfect. It can stand some change every now and again. That said, if a problem is perceived, why not approach the solution in an orderly fashion? If there is an aspect of our civil justice system that needs changing, why not look for a win-win solution rather than one that satifies only the complainer?

How could that be done? First, identify exactly what the perceived harm is. Next, do some qualitative analysis to see if that perception is valid. There is plenty of data available to prove or disprove any particular theory. Third, bring everyone who has a stake in the issue to the table and look for a solution that considers all the players and impacts as point of view as minimally as possible.

Improbable? Highly. Possible? Most definitely. Why is there such a problem? Because those who cry for tort reform don’t really want reform, they only want to improve their bottom line. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest