Posted by
cornpone on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:20:47 AM
Once again the hysterical calls from liberals and
a few misguided conservatives for so-called tort "reform"
are reappearing on internet blogs.
It's time someone shined a light on the embarrassing
derriere of the malpractice advocate-the gullible soul who
reads a sensationalized headline, or hears the angry rant of
a talk radio host, whose livelihood depends on a multitude of angry
callers, and assumes the information is complete and truthful without
ever reading the full transcript of the trial, and in many cases makes a
stupid premature judgment without even having seen the evidence,
and before the case has even gone to trial!
It's not intellectually honest, but then tort reformers rarely are.
.
The primal need for food on the table financed of course,
through paying readers and subscribers who ultimately
persuade paying advertisers who are the real source
of big revenues for the paper.
This is a strong motivation for newspaper editors and writers
(and talk show hosts) to resort to misleading and inaccurate
headlines in order to sell papers or gain listeners
by sensationalizing the latest "outrage".
Its called outrage peddling-and it works.
Yes, it's Jerry Springer time for the media-and the well financed
AMA lobbyists who are anything but objective or truthful about tort reform.
But its also worth noting that jurors are not media elites or powerful
people who dont believe they have the time to serve on a jury.
Jurors are by and large ordinary people like you and I,
with the God given common sense to see through bogus claims.
And contrary to what been published on this subject,
trial jurors are not automatons, nor are they pro-plaintiff.
We do after all, have voir dire for jury trials.
By the way, a person advocating so called tort "reform"
who doesn't know what a motion for
summary judgment is, and how it works
and what a Voir Dire is and how it works, lacks the credibilty
to voice a strong opinion on this issue.
Most of these anecdotal "outrages" or claims, have been found to be less than
"outrageous" when the full trial transcript has been read by people
who dont accept the one sided, sensationalized, very dubious reports
of the latest law suit "outrage" by angry talk show hosts and news papers
who need outraged readers or listeners-in the case of radio
talk hosts -for their continued existence.
The truth is, tort reform legislation prejudges and limits an
American citizen's constitutional right to have their case heard by a jury
of their peers
It's up to the trial judges to discern when a suit has no legal merit,
and rule in favor of every defendant's predictable motion for summary judgment.
And trial judges generally do a good job in dismissing cases which do
not state a claim for which there is a legal remedy. And lawyers who
filke a spurious law suit can be sanctioned by the trial judge, and in
egregious cases they can be disbarred. Thus, the spurious law suit is mostly,
but not entirely, and urban legend-spread by lobbyists
It's up to the trial judges to discern when a suit has no legal merit,
and rule in favor of every defendant's predictable motion for summary judgment.
And if after scrutiny by a judge, the claim states a case for which relief can
be be granted, then there must be a trial to determine which side is supported by
the relevant facts. If it does not state an actionable claim, it is summarily dimissed
And that is the way it should be-and we don't need
legislators tinkering with a good and fair process, to insulate powerful and
wealthy defendants from responsibility for their actions.
That is why many rightly call tort reform, the "Wrong doers Protection Act"
I would rather not see the government further limit the rights of ordinary
people to seek redress in the courts against powerful well financed
defendants with well funded lobbyists like the AMA has.
These are the folks behind so-called "tort reform", which is just a way
to preempt a jury trial as guaranteed by the constitution for persons
requesting access to the justice system.
Why not put a cap on the outrageous malpractice insurance
premiums if we want to impose a government solution into private matters?