Monday, July 25, 2005

Hep Me Hep Me
Please, please, please, pretty please help me out here. I want to know the public perception of tort reform and I don't want to pay my husband to do the research. I have over 100 readers a day, so surely I can get some idea from you guys, right? Won't you please answer the following questions for me in my comments? If you don't want to answer publicly, just send your answers to happyhomemakerblog -at- yahoo.com. Here we go:

1) Tort reform is good/bad because __________.

2) Tort reform places caps on _______________, which means __________.

3) I support/do not support tort reform measures.

4) Punitive damages are:

5) I generally consider myself liberal/conservative.

I'm not one bit concerned whether you agree or disagree with me, or whether your answers are "correct." I'm just trying to discover general perceptions. Thank you SO MUCH for your help!

15 Comments:

Blogger Quinn Cummings said...

This isn't about tort reform, but I wanted to thank you for leaving a kind note at QC. This person left snotty notes on several entries, and while I support the right to free speech, it's kind of discouraging to wake up to that this morning in my mailbox.

And thank you for all the kind things you've written before. I really do this to entertain myself and (with any luck) a few others. It's kind of fun to think it might be doing that.

Quinn

6:38 PM, July 25, 2005  
Blogger Jan said...

Wow.

You know that feeling when your blog hero acknowledges your existence?

That's what I've got.

6:45 PM, July 25, 2005  
Blogger Mel said...

) Tort reform is good/bad because damages awarded are disproportionate and ridiculously high in some cases.

2) Tort reform places caps on damages awarded, which means fewer lawsuits, more reasonable judgments.

3) I support tort reform measures.

4) Punitive damages are payments made to punish the so-called wrongdoer for the error or wrong action.

5) I generally consider myself conservative.

Do I pass? ;)

2:47 AM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger PopeBenedictXVI said...

I'm stumped and I'm not particularly interested in tort reform as I don't live in the US. But I from what I can gather, you need it. Although many of your nasty corporations need a good kicking from time to time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a cult to run so I'd best be off.

3:21 AM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't been in any movies with Richard Dreyfuss, so I guess that's why I'm not your blog hero!

;)

I don't know tort from tart, so I won't comment.

Angi L.

9:30 AM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Jan said...

Okay, friends. You do NOT have to know ANYTHING about torts OR tarts to comment here. And, its not pass/fail. If you don't know anything, that helps me, too. When you're a lawyer, you forget that other people don't know tort from tarts, and I'm just trying to quantify that. So if you don't know what tort reform is, just say so. No harm done. (and don't forget you can be anonymous or you can reply to me by email)

1:01 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Dan Lovejoy said...

I am continually amazed at how absolutely insane some people can be online. (Or in small bookstores, evidently)

I think there are two reasons one runs into so many wack jobs online.

First, the anonymity provides cover, and people forget to act human.

Second, there are actually some lunatics out there. Most of us choose not to associate with them or go to tea parties with them in real life. Online, it's harder to isolate yourself from these folks.

What I wouldn't give for a "putz-free" Internet.

3:00 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All right, please understand that I am replying because I am your friend, and otherwise I would not be replying at all. Especially since I'm related to a certain attorney that we both know, not to mention my grandfather, as well as my greatgrandfather. Okay, well, you know the story....

The sad truth is that I have absolutely no idea what a tort is, much less if they should be reformed. I approach it as "if it doesn't exist in my little world, then it can wait... I'll make time to learn about it if and when it ever comes a-knockin'."

As for punitive damages, I think that's when the guilty party has to pay for pain and suffering to who(m)ever he hurt, in an attempt to make up for the wrongdoing.

Politically speaking, I'm moderate. Primarily conservative, but leaning liberal on certain key issues. It depends on the subject.

-- meg (name withheld to protect family!) :-)

3:54 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i.e. I don't know what tort reforms are.

7:46 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was the anonymous poster above. My son jumped in my lap and somehow sent the message before I was finished. I was just going to sign it. . .

Angi L.

7:47 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Dan Lovejoy said...

1.) Tort reform is good because trial lawyers are abusing the system, getting rich at the expense of consumers.

2.) Tort reform places caps on damages, which means lower insurance rates, willingness of plaintiffs to make equitable settlements, and less money for trial lawyers. It can also mean that a small number of severely injured people may not be able to recover sufficient damages for long-term care.

3) I support tort reform measures.

4) Punitive damages are designed to punish malfeasance and prevent companies from figuring depraved indifference into their actuarial calculations. However, punitive damages have become lotteries as a result of personal injury attorneys' advertising and promises to clients.

5) I generally consider myself conservative.

9:11 PM, July 26, 2005  
Blogger Jan said...

Thank you guys for replying! You have been a great help! (Mel, you get an A+ for following the format. I'm still not grading on answers, though!)

9:41 PM, July 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know what tort reform is, but but don't know enough to say I am for or against without more research on my part.

6:57 AM, July 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Tort reform is good because it is my personal experience that attorneys are urging injured employees to sue instead of seek a resolution that is good for both employer and employee. The moment I knew this: when four law firms mailed me solicitations when I was injured on the job. How did they get my name and address?

2) Tort reform places caps on judgements and legal fees, which means an end to $3 million settlements for spilled coffee. It also provides alternatives to going to court.

3) I support/do not support tort reform measures. Read my previous answers...

4) Punitive damages are: acceptable, within limits. I disagree with class action suits that capture millions for obscure law firms and a coupon for those actually damaged.

5) I generally consider myself moderate.

-TDG

9:02 PM, July 27, 2005  
Anonymous Lisa Wynn said...

1) Tort reform is good because there is a finite amount of “things” in the world, and someone or something will be used/spent at the expense of another. Which means, if someone is given a multi-million dollar award, someone else (or others) pay for it somehow (increased insurance premiums, increased liability insurance, etc.). It is also good because it is founded the basic biblical principle of an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This never meant (in Exodus or when reiterated by Jesus) a literal taking of an eye or a tooth, but it meant rendering what would be equivalent to the loss, nothing more.

2) Tort reform places caps on awarded damages which means there are fixed limits for which awards can be given.

3) I support tort reform measures.

4) Punitive damages are awards given over and above what would have been equivalent retribution and are intended to act as punishment. I am against this (although you didn’t ask) unless malicious intent can be proven.

5) I generally consider myself liberal.

Just as a bit of interesting trivia, the section of the Mishna (200 B.C. - 200 A.D.) entitled "Nezikin: deals with tort law. Here is an excerpt (sort of a twist on following-too-closely): If two pot-sellers were walking one behind the other and the first one stumbled and fell and the second stumbled over the first, the first one is liable for the injury suffered by the second.

9:25 PM, July 28, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home

-->