Gov. Sonny Perdue waded into one of the thorniest issues under the Gold Dome Tuesday by proposing a legislative package aimed at reducing lawsuits that he called frivolous. The measures would stick plaintiffs who sue companies with the legal fees if their lawsuits are dismissed early in the process and would make it more difficult for lawyers to file lawsuits against bio-tech companies with ties to Georgia.
“With the help of the General Assembly, we’ll make plain that the threat of meritless litigation is not a viable business strategy in Georgia,” the governor told more than 2,500 business leaders at an annual Georgia Chamber of Commerce breakfast.
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association was reportedly “caught off guard” by Perdue’s statement, and a spokesperson responded by saying, “People in Georgia are really hurting. We have some really serious issues that legislators have been working to solve — and right now they’re proposing on top of all this to take away the constitutional rights of the people in Georgia?”
I’m not even going to waste my own time (nor yours) rebutting the GTLA spokesperson’s absurd claim that reforming the lawsuit process to impose penalties on those who file frivolous suits for the sole purpose of making a windfall monetary gain at the expense of a company or individual who has actually worked for that money. Nope – not going to say a word.
Instead, I’ll just point you to this study about the effects of tort reform legislation in a different state — Texas — and its facts-based defense of the measure, which has, in the 13 years since its implementation, “resulted in [a reduction of] $112.5 billion in annual spending in Texas[,] 499,000 new, permanent jobs and a $2.6 billion increase in state tax revenue giving Texas a resounding competitive advantage in these challenging economic times” (yeah, the folks who wrote that release apparently can’t spell, punctuate, or proofread, but the numbers are what matter anyway).
Update: Danny Garner at Red County thinks it’s about time tort reform came to Georgia.
{ 33 comments }
Jeff,
That’s going to be all well and good until your granparents pick up a six pack of fda approved, chinese manufactured, Melanin laced Ensure.
So the free market works unless it involves a lawsuit?
Vic,
What’d be frivolous about that lawsuit?
grift,
What part of lawsuits and government courts are “free market”?
Oh, btw Vic, my grandparents are dead…but my fiancée, though younger than me, drinks Ensure every day
I’m in favor of a “loser pays” system. If you’re sure you have a good case then by all means knock yourself out. But if you lose…..
Hit the nail on the head, Vic. The definition of “frivolous lawsuit” is “YOUR lawsuit”. The definition of “meritorious lawsuit” is “MY lawsuit”.
When I first started talking about going to law school, I had at least a dozen rural relatives groan and hassle me about what a sleazy move I was making (you know, because personal-injury and products-liability plaintiff work are the only forms of law one might practice). Between then and now (my third year)… almost HALF those same people have called me up all pissed off about something their doctor or employer did to them, and wanting to know how much they can sue for (*). Unbelievable.
(*) Note for any Georgia Bar administrators who might be reading this: No, of course I didn’t give them any unlicensed legal advice. I DID point out that they were hypocrites, of course.
The free market doesn’t work unless businesses are sometimes punished for bad decisions. Sometimes that means lawsuits. And that means the courts.
my condolences Jeff but if Eric is right, our grandparents aren’t dead if they believed in Jesus and the Georgia GOP. Considering your generous, recent enlightenment, i’ll rephrase the question:
Jeff,
That’s going to be all well and good until your fiance who is younger than you pick up a six pack of FDA APPROVED, CHINESE MANUFACTURED, MELANIN LACED ENSURE.
it’s frivolous for young people to drink ensure. therefore, when the mealnin hits, she should have known better and you and your children get to pay the US corporation, chinese manufacturer and fda’s attorney’s fees.
Sure, grift. And tort reform isn’t a means of doing away with that system – it’s a means of reforming it, so that it works better for those with real grievances, while also helping businesses not pay through the nose to settle frivolous suits in an effort to simply avoid monster legal fees.
Would you be okay with a loser pays system?
I am not against reform as long as that reform does not unbalance the free market equation. As Steve pointed out, have fun defining frivilous.
I’d have to see details on a loser pays system.
Putting forth outlandish stories about a dry cleaner going out of business because they were sued over the loss of a pair of pants shouldn’t be included.
I think we need tort reform in GA too.
We need to repeal the previous law passed by the GOP in 2005 and replace it with the democrats plan to create a state-provided mal-practice insurance company that would introduce real competition in that industry.
The GOP driven tort “reform” package that was passed just years ago has done nothing but help the insurance industry. Punitive damage caps was the big component…but, just like so many “conservative” propositions, this bill was rushed through the legislature. Not only are the victims and their lawyers being screwed…doctors are too. Not only are their malpractice premiums not going down (like the “free-market hyper-capitalists” said they would [because the GOP does not understand economics]), but if and when they do something bad enough to warrant a lawsuit…hospitals and med. partnerships can fire the doctor responsible and steer clear any of the financial fallout…leaving the doctor solely respsonsible for paying up (which means bank accounts can be levied, assests repossessed, wages/salary garnished, etc.).
The goal of tort reform should not be to bring economic hardship upon political opponents’ campaign contributors. It should be to help the people. Malpractice premiums for the average doctor in GA should not be $29K per year. That is extortion. Real competition needs to be brought to that industry…or laws should be passed making it illegal for an insurance company to raise their premiums to keep bad doctors covered.
When I get into a car accident in Dunwoody, should some unrelated party in Savannah have hirer premiums? No.
Unfortunately, when all is said and done…somebody, or mutiple persons, are going to befall a terrible medical tragedy before the GA GOP (and their ilk) change their minds about what justice truely is.
At $350k in punitive damages…it is not worth a lawyers time to even go to court. the court fees exceed the amount of money a lawyer can make when he invests his/her reserves to go to court for a client. In the end, the plaintiff has little to show for their personal tragedy…if anything.
What do you do to a doctor who, being under the influence, botches a few circumcisions? The only economic costs are the medical bills…he gets sued for that, big deal. That/those infant male(s) are getting 70% of $350k…their lives will forever be ruined, and the GOP of GA believes that is justice…all because, in the end, it hurts part of the donor base for democratic campaigns.
Oh, yeah…pertaining to the proposal in question…it does seem reasonable.
Why should a lawyer get paid if he/she loses a case?
That does not excuse the fact that the previous law does not address the problem it was supposed to fix.
Furthermore…screw the free market. Our system was created to deliver justice to the people. When a person is wronged…justice should be delivered…regardless of what it does to the company/entity in the defense.
“Furthermore…screw the free market.”
…straight from Goldwater’s 64 Convention speach.
Icarus,
read the thing in it’s entirety.
There are some things more important than the free market.
See Icarus,
Not only does GC not believe in the free market, he doesn’t understand it and doesn’t understand what government’s role in it should be and that believing in the free market doesn’t mean one doesn’t believe in justice and that the free market doesn’t prevent government from delivering it.
GC allowing a company to go under do to a judgement because they practiced fraud and/or coercion is free market. In the free market there is no such thing as “too big to fail.”
do = due
…And he’s also been a Democrat since before Goldwater ran for President.
Oh, …nevermind. However, I have seen similar statements by GOP members, just reversed (“companies need to be protected”).
Do Judges not already have the power to toss “frivolous” lawsuits. And can Judges award damages to the defendant if a lawsuit is so deemed?
I haven’t boned up on this issue… I’ll be quiet and learn.
I am glad to see that Mr. Adams actually understands the meaning of free market.
It is a farcry from the miscommunication among conservative rhetoric where the term free market has merely referred to the market itself (a blatant attempt to usurp vocabulary on another subject…a misnomer if you will).
Fact is, as pro-”free-market” as the GOP claims to be, it has consistently supported business interests over the victims of said business’s practices. GOP versions of tort reform have consistently been on the side of limiting damage rewards to the point where bringing a civil case to court is a first resort for business (last resort for legal practices) and is so unviable, economically, for lawyers that justice is often ignored.
In simple terms, the GOP has sought to make suing their contributors economically unviable. It has nearly become too expensive to bring a non-federal civil action against most entities for most reasons.
Icarus and his ilk have long ago forgotten (if they were yet to be born) that the GOP of the 50s, 60s, and 70s was much different than that of today. Back then, we won federal elections quite often…and when in the minority we could get bills passed. Because we were smart and we were pragmitists. We understood American politics…unlike the GOP of today. Bang up job in ’06 and ’08…proof positive that right-wing radicalism is only a practical governing strategy in the least educated of states.
Got to love the days where I’m called a right-wing radical and an anti-free market leftist over my interpretation of the same issue. Tells me that I’m probably somewhere near the actual center.
We still gotta find that third guy.
It would get us 50% closer than we are now to 51%
O.C.G.A. Section 9-15-14
O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11
O.C.G.A. Section 51-7-80 et. seq.
Already on the books. We need more laws why?
Got to love the days where I’m called a right-wing radical and an anti-free market leftist over my interpretation of the same issue.
Happens to libertarians on a daily basis however, the issue is usually different (talking a social issue with the right, economic issue with the left)… sometimes leaves you feeling ran over in both directions and wondering why you’re still standing in the middle of the road. Being consistant for freedom hurts sometimes. But that is one of the many ils that alcohol is for.
OK. In all the above, not one lawyer opined on the subject. I guess I will jump in. I speak with some authority as a GA licensed atty doing almost entirely plaintiff’s injury work, and as a died-in-the-wool gun-totin’ conservative as well.
The function of the Courts is to provide State Sanctioned redress for grievances. Long before our hyper-regulatory current environment, Courts established precedents that guided the behavior of business. When a judgment came down that established that manufacturers of shoddy products should be held liable for the injuries caused by said products, the principle of starre decisis allows for a consistent remedy for future cases.
The alternative to having the Courts regulate is to have government regulate directly. I would argue the Courts are much more efficient at doing this, and provide scads more flexibility at the same time.
The statutes listed by SavannahDem serve to provide the very goal desired by so-called Tort Reform. They are rarely enforced by our judges though – that is because we all have the inherent right to bring our grievances before the Court. An automatic loser pays system will provide an enormous chilling effect on the ability of average joe to bring a suit. So long as there is a mere scintilla of controversy, how can you justify denying his Average Joe that right?
I am currently dis-engaging from several potential med-mal claims for genuinely damaged persons because I cannot economically justify representing them. It will cost too much to pursue. These poor people will likely have to deal with the consequences of their injuries at the hands of bad doctors for the rest of their lives without compensation. Some reform. So much for enforcing responsibility.
One last point. While I can make a joke about being an “ambulance chaser”, to tar me and all the other hard-working, dedicated plaintiff’s representatives is unfair and insulting. In the event that those who fee that way are ever injured because someone else was negligent, and your life is completely turned upside down as a result, I hope those attorneys you contact for help get an apology from you.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
grift,
I am against most tort reform. It is already extremely difficult for the average person screwed by a business to get relief in modest claims since legal fees would far exceed the amount recovered. Larger companies have attorneys on staff capable of dealing with these.
Also, loser pays is usually a bad idea because some issues are not exactly clear cut, and people have a right to have their side heard if there is a reasonable basis to their claim.
Where we might differ, though, is that I think that there can be a penalty for frivolous litigation by making the standard where a reasonable person would find the case without merit. Sure, it is slightly nebulous, but that is what the jury is for. If a case is won and a motion is made for the jury to award damages for a frivolous suit (or really a frivolous claim, as a frivolous defense should also be punished), they could then determine if the loser raised issues that they (the reasonable people) think are claims with some merit. if not, they loser should then have to pay the winners reasonable legal fees as well as a multiple of 3-5 times the damages.
I think one problem with loser pays is it’s adds full litigation expense when plantiff already bears the burden of proof. Not seriously, how about loser pays, but the burden of proof is on the defense to disprove plaintiff allegations?
The metro Atlanta business community is complaining that transportation is choking growth, so the head of the Georgia GOP is proposing tort reform.
What an ear, and a dang fine innovative solution too.
I cited three laws above that address this “problem.” No one has yet made the case why a new law is needed.
Once again I ask, why do we need a new law to address this “problem?”
Savannah,
Well, perhaps because you were too lazy to summarize your citations. No one comes here to make your points for you. If they are indeed such wonderful sources, instead of providing just the code section, why not include a real live hyper-text link to the source and actually explain why it is relevant.
You can’t really criticize your readers for ignoring your post or for being lazy, when you are lazy yourself.
Those people who want to enact a new law should take the time to familarize themselves with the issue enough to know the laws that are already on the books. Sorry for assuming that people pushing an issue would have done their homework.
Silly (lazy) me.
I am not pushing legislation, just stating my opinion as to how it should work, if it doesn’t already. If you cannot add an argument as to why a resource is applicable to a discussion, then you are just wasting everyone’s time. You do not win debates by citing a book and telling your oponents to read the entire text to find your argument. We aren’t going to do your thinking for you.
O.C.G.A. Section 51-7-80 et. seq. already allows for the relief which you advocate in your post last night.
However, I believe that the punitive damages you support (“3-5 times the damages”) would be capped at $350k per defendant and that the claim would have to be brought in a separate suit, not as a motion within the “frivolous” case.
O.C.G.A. Section 9-15-14 allows for you to make a motion for fees within the case, but does not give you any option for punitive damages. Same with O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11.
Thanks SavDem for the effort in posting. It really does make it easier for your readers to see the point you are making. Squiggles and numbers alone do not make the same impact as a brief synopsis. Plus, it avoids having everyone to use that really substandard LexisNexis interface for searching code sections.
I agree that if laws are in place to address and issue, they should actually be used before new law is enacted. If they are faulty, then repealed and replaced with something that works. Tort reform, as it usually goes, is less “reform” than system gaming for people who have the good favor of the legislature.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }