Why tort reform

The Good Samaritan Clause can protect these entities even if an error caused serious harm. This clause commonly limits the liability of those who are providing emergency care.

Unfortunately, when a person seeks medical assistance, errors could be made which can cause him or her additional injuries. Tort reform advantages and disadvantages can limit the responsibilities of individuals and corporations, which could affect the overall costs for many services. The ultimate purpose of the United States justice system is to create fairness, so all could be made whole if need be.

Ultimately, tort reform may make things worse for those who have been wronged. It can severely impact their opportunity to seek justice and restitution for the damages they received. Legal Disclaimer: This website is for informational purposes only. Use of this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Information entered on this website is not confidential. This website has paid attorney advertising.

Anyone choosing a lawyer must do their own independent research. By using this website, you agree to our additional Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

By selecting "Accept", the link will open in a new tab. By Practice. By Location. Back to Main Categories. Tort Reform. Written by AskTheLawyers. Tort Reform: Advantages and Disadvantages Tort reform refers to a recommended modification to the civil justice system. Tort reform allows jurors to concentrate on the case at hand instead of the punitive damages being asked for Tort reform proponents argue that a righteous jury should only decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant involved in a tort case.

Disadvantages of Tort Reform Tort reform changes liability organization for companies The ultimate goal of having limitless punitive damages is to regulate the actions of individuals or businesses in relation to their overall liability. Tort reform could impede a lawsuit before it has the opportunity to begin Unfortunately, there are many tort reform suggestions that include a term known as a Good Samaritan Clause.

One of the most common approaches to tort reform focuses on statutes of limitations — which would limit the amount of time a person has to file a lawsuit following his or her injury. Critics point out it can take years — decades, even — for injuries to develop following the initial incident, removing the legal recourse many would have to seek compensation. Those who support statutes of limitations believe it makes it difficult to reconstruct a case and create a clear indication of how injuries occurred.

Another approach to tort reform is to limit monetary damages courts can award to a plaintiff. Reforms focus on punitive damages, which are given to plaintiffs above and beyond compensatory damages. Over the last few decades, juries have increasingly awarded huge punitive damages in addition to what a plaintiff receives for medical care and property damage compensation.

Some believe tort reform accomplishes its goal of restructuring the legal system, but does so without truly fixing anything. Some also believe it allows businesses and other defendants to cut corners and put safety on the back burner. With over , deaths due to negligence in the U. According to various studies, however, the costs associated with medical malpractice lawsuits was relatively low, and current reforms have not necessarily made any difference, other than making it increasingly difficult for victims to obtain compensation or recourse for medical negligence.

With damage caps, time limitations, and procedural requirements that make medical malpractice claims difficult to pursue at best, it has also made it practically impossible for attorneys to pursue these cases in some states. With strict requirements, damage caps, and high expenses involved in pursuing these claims, a number of attorneys who previously represented victims of medical negligence are no longer able to pursue these types of cases.

If you live in a tort reform state, such as Texas, you may be affected in any number of ways. For example, the number of attorneys pursuing these cases has decreased. Secondly, if you are able to find a firm that will take your case, the amount that you can recover is limited. Unfortunately, another side effect of tort reform is that it may have hindered the progress of patient safety initiatives. Translation: ER doctors tend to order expensive tests and procedures regardless of the consequences or threat of a medical negligence claim.

The problem? That the alleged problems did not actually exist prior to reform efforts. This goes to show that one of the primary reasons for the enactment of tort reform — high medical malpractice awards that could adversely affect quality of health care and costs — was basically a non-issue.