Tort Reform Necessary? Why? There Is No

¶ … Tort Reform Necessary? Why?

There is no doubt that America is a litigious society. It is a right built into the U.S. Constitutional that citizens can bring litigation against a person or entity when real (or imagined) harm has been done. Justice should be within reach of all Americans in that sense. But is there a point where too many lawsuits are launched over issues that are seemingly petty? And are there institutions that need protection from litigation? These issues will be addressed in this paper.

Tort Reform is necessary: Dr. Jeffrey R. Cornwall writes in The Christian Science Monitor that small businesses are "…the most impacted by liability costs," and in fact he believes the current economic recovery in the United States cannot reach fruition without tort reform at some level (Cornwall, 2010, p. 1). Cornwall cites a recent study by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), a study which points out how small businesses "…shoulder a sizable liability burden" (p. 1). The dollar amounts that the ILR presents are startling: small businesses paid out $105.4 billion in 2008 alone, and that figure keeps climbing upward, putting a huge strain on small businesses (Cornwall, p. 2).

Granted, Cornwall continues, the insurance companies ended up paying a lion's share of those costs, but another study Cornwall references shows that "…a third of the cost ends up coming out of their own pockets" and moreover, small businesses "…bore 81% of business tort liability costs but took in only 22% of the revenue" (p. 2).

Meanwhile, an example of why tort reform is needed is presented in a blog from the respected Washington, D.C. publication, The Hill. The blog is by Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist, who takes issue with the actions by (then) U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich after Kucinich bit into a sandwich in the congressional cafeteria and broke a tooth when he hit a pit in an olive. Williams points out that Kucinich could have worked out a deal with the cafeteria to pay for his dental work, but instead Kucinich sued for damages ($150,000 worth) by claiming he suffered "serious and permanent injuries" and as a result of the broken tooth he claimed a "loss of enjoyment" (Williams, 2011, p. 1).

"Give me a break," Williams writes, and although a conservative columnist like Williams certainly delighted in launching a negative editorial against a well-known liberal like Kucinich, Williams' point is well taken. The $150,000 has "to come from somewhere" and though the cafeteria's insurance company likely picked up a big piece of the tab, the situation likely means that there will be "…lost revenues, lost profits, and less in the till to dole to employees" (Williams, p. 1).

One of the most consistent comments from those who support tort reform is that the cost of health insurance goes up because of litigation launched against doctors, hospitals, nurses and others in the healthcare field. But an article in the American Statesman (Austin, Texas) reports that even after a 2003 constitutional amendment in Texas -- limiting payouts from medical malpractice litigation -- there is "no evidence" that healthcare costs have been reduced (Roser, 2012). Although medical malpractice suits (and payouts to litigants) in Texas dropped sharply after the constitutional reform limiting payouts from torts, a research project by University Law Professor Charles Silver "…disputes claims of a mass exodus of Texas doctors before tort reform and huge increases afterward" (Roser, p. 1).