Tort reform has been on the lips of politicians and attorneys for many years. In the United States, it is a contentious political issue with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. U.S. tort reform advocates propose procedural and time limits on the right to file claims as well as capping the amounts of damage awards. The supporters of the existing tort system argue that the reformers have misrepresented the issues and criticize tort reform as favoring corporations. In this essay, the author will briefly look at both sides of the issue. Then, we will examine possible solutions in the form of a social security type of system that would issue payments to tort recipients from a government run accident insurance fund that corporations and citizens would both contribute to. Such an approach would however constitute a major change in the tort system of the U.S. which is fundamentally based upon British common law and its adversarial legal system.
The Issues
Tort reform refers to several proposed changes in the common law civil justice system that would reduce tort damages and/or litigation. Tort actions are civil common law claims that were first created under the English system of common law as a non-legislative method for compensating harm done by one person or organization to another's person, property or other protected issues (e.g., their reputation, under the applicable libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates in particular focus on the personal injury common law rules.
In Texas, Georgia and California, a losing party pays the court costs of the opposing...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now