TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
this is for my class's debate. my debate is "not to limit tort law"

please keep it civil guys and gals. i just need some idea because from where i'm come from, we never heard tort law before. so this is new to me.

keep it civil and please no flaming here. respect others comment.

thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
If you read King of Torts by John Grisham, you wil get a pretty good idea of what happens. Rather not get into it, but there is definately 2 sides to it.

Joe
 

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
there is 2 side of course, my argument is to not limit tort law and other group is to debate that tort law should be limted. i cannot choose so i have to stick with it. thanks for the suggestion and i will look into it. keep it coming and thanks a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Well, the book actually gives both sides (from a lawyer's point of view), but to limit it to not limiting tort law, from what I know, favors the people, and not businesses. For example...(from the book), a town which is built on a masonary business is in trouble. This company manufactured bricks which were defective and fell apart after a certain amount of years after they were used in houses. They were used in many houses. The people were talked into sueing the masonary company for damages to their homes. (Many, many people) The company has been sued and each person sues for, say $50,000 in damages to their homes. There are 10,000 people who are in this lawsuit. That comes to $50,000,000. This company doesn't have this much money, so they file bankruptcy. They can pay out $1,000,000. This comes to $100 per home. In this sense, each home gets some money, but not all for damages. The company is out of business for making defective bricks. That is the good thing. But then on the other side, which your group is not dealing with, is the fact that all the employees of the business are out of work and the down goes down the drain.

So I guess, from your side, putting down the bad comanies is a good thing. Hope this helps a little bit. I'm sure more will chime in.

Joe
 

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
wow, this make sense to me. at least i have something to talk about. from where i come from, we use british system and the law is way different than here. it's a democratic country and everything is different that here. that's why i still having a lot of question about the way it is in the united states.

i like the way the tort law that will make the bad goes down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
If you are doing this as a group project you should divide your group into two, one side that will research and come up with areas on why to limit it and the other side to come up with ways on why not to limit it, this way that portion of your group can have a rebuttle thought into what the other group may come up with.

Why not to limit tort law, well you can start with what would be a good limit for certain things. Is payment for one wrong to one individual good for payment for the same wrong to another individual, even if the situation was different. Take for example Erin Bronkavic sp? the movie, some families suffered much worse consequences than did others while they were all subject to the same thing. Some had larger hospital bills than most could imagine. If a cap was placed on the amount they could recieve many of the families may not have had enough to pay for the hospital bills.

We had a similar discussion in one of my law classes and the way I felt when I left was that the best answer was that there isn't one.

Yes there should but in certain situations like doctors, because they get sued all the time,
No because who has the right to say that the cap will effeciently cover all that could be subject to the cap.
 

·
Fry Rice Specialist
Joined
·
4,794 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
just got some extra guideline today. we will concentrate more on medical malpractice.

throw in any advice or debate against this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
i'm not sure if this helps much, but the #1 reason why i would not want to be a docter is having to pay for the insurance to cover oneself from malpractice suits. sure there are some bad doctors out there doing things they shouldn't, but the price the good doctors have to pay to practice their profession is getting out of control. perhaps something could be worked out prior to surgrey that would set guide lines for fiscal limits on malpractice suits(like a contract between doctor & pateint). also i believe things such as tort law are controled by the state not the federal government. so there might be some variance state to state. good luck dude
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
first off, limited tort does not limit awards for actual damages or expenses, such as hospital bills. If you have legitimate expenses from an accident, or medical malpractice, then you are entitled to them being included in your award, whether limited tort or not.

Limited tort is usually referred to in regard to 'pain and suffering' damages, or awards that are much harder to put a number on.

I am in favor of limited tort in such cases. If it is not limited, you end up with high dollar lawyers playing to a juries emotions, who are awarding money that is not their own, and that they often see as coming from large nameless corporations with bottomless pockets. This is NOT the case, as almost all (really, probably ALL) expenses get passed back to US as the end consumer in the form of higher prices or insurance premiums.

Unlimited tort is one of the things wrong with this country that has driven many doctors out of business with outrageous malpractice premiums and is making health insurance unaffordable for many people who could otherwise afford it.

end of rant........................
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top