Firestone tire case study

Tort Reform Firestone

Based on your reading of the case, what type of tort reform do you think should be done?

Tort reform in this particular case should be inclusive of procedural limits on the ability to file claims and caps placed on punitive damages. Caps should also be placed on the amount of money that can be received by those seeking damages. Although the presents of caps on rewards may seem unfair to many, caps serve the purpose of enduring that the company is able to stay in business, while also taking responsibilities for its actions in selling defective tires. As such the amounts awarded would be high enough to affect the companies bottom line, but low enough to ensure that the company will be able to remain in business. Such tort reform is necessary, particularly in the present economy. A large company such as firestone going out of business can cost thousands of people their jobs throughout the country and the world. The loss of such a large company would have a negative impact on the entire economy. As such the tort reform is absolutely necessary as it pertains to this particular case. Such reforms are necessary because they also tend to ensure that the company will take responsibility for faulty products sooner, thereby removing them from the public and settling suits in a timely manner. Companies are more likely to take responsibility for the products because they know that there are limits to the amount of damages that customers can receive.

2. What proposals has Congress made for tort reform?

Proposals by congress involving tort reform include, limits on non-economic damages. Such damages are associated with compensating "people for losses that can't be measured by considering missed income or out-of-pocket expenses - such as the very real suffering associated with injuries (like blindness, loss of limbs, loss of fertility, and gross disfigurement). Non- economic damages often make up the bulk of awards given to those who don't earn any income at all - such as children, homemakers, and the elderly (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform)." Congress has also proposed tort reform in the form of caps for punitive damages. Such reform is designed to limit the amount of money that can be recovered for a lawsuit involving a faulty product. In some instances, congress has recommended that the caps for personal injuries be limited to $250,000.00 (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). This has been met with a great deal of skepticism because many believe that such caps do not provide justice for victims.

Additionally, congress has supported and proposed tort reform related to limiting class action suits ( Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). Class action suits can be particularly devastating for companies because courts can award large awards. For some cases, courts have awarded billions of dollars as a result of defective products. Some legislators believe that such suits encourage companies to ensure that there products are safe. Other law makers, however, believe that such suits are excessive and can prevent companies from being able to recover.

Another form of tort reform that as been suggested is known as "loser pays. This type of legislation is based on the English Rule (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). This particular proposal would force the loser in a lawsuit to pay all the expenses associated with bringing the lawsuit (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). This is already a part of the rules of the court in the British system. The purpose of such a reform is to minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits that end up in court. Having such a law discourages people from filing suits that cannot be won. These lawsuits also encourage people to settle their differences outside of the courtroom. Such reforms are present in various judicial systems throughout the world and serve the purpose of reducing the expense and time associated with the filing of law suits and going to court.

3. What laws (if any) have passed since the tire recall (in response to the tire recall)?

The main law that was inspired by the firestone recall was passed in 2000 by President Clinton. This bill is known as the Tread Act. ("Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation"). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, as a direct consequence of hearings before the Committee on Energy and Commerce on the safety of Firestone tires and related matters. In the course of the hearings, the Committee determined that NHTSA could have detected the problems with the tires sooner if it had obtained reports about the tires problems in a timelier manner (Tread Act)."