Group of ideas are designed to change an underlying liability rules in the civil justice system, tort reform. Tort reform often alters the cultural aspect of civil litigations and makes it difficult for the plaintiffs’ to do the following: a) whom to file the case against, b) filing a lawsuit, c) obtaining an enormous amount of money for their suffrage, and etc (Daniels & Martin, 2000).
Even though, tort reform makes it difficult for the injured person to sue a company, expecting millions of dollars for every claim is ridiculous. Ramseyer and Rasmusen (2010) mentioned about McDonald’s Coffee incident when Ms. Liebeck received $2.86 million for a coffee spill. If McDonald’s keeps satisfying every injured person with the money they demand, their business will be penniless. Instead, a cap should be placed on the amount being settled for the accuser. For example, the company can announce that for every incident occurred and if their case is valid, they will receive $100,000. Especially because the company’s only way of not going bankrupt is by increasing their prices. Every customer that purchase food at …show more content…
A bill was passed in Texas in 2003 capping damages for pain and suffering from malpractice claims at $250,000. Another bill issued in California limit’s plaintiffs’ leverage by initiating a Malpractice and Injury Compensation Reform Act, which limits “pain and suffering” damages to $250,000 as well. Although private teaching hospitals are shielded from malpractice claims through “sovereign immunity” they capped their damages at $300,000 per incident in Florida. While granting these limits, the plaintiffs are still receiving a large amount of money. Additionally this helps lower income level families to not suffer in the process. Thus, tort reform is helpful and must be established in all companies (Trend: medical malpractice tort reform.
Even though, tort reform makes it difficult for the injured person to sue a company, expecting millions of dollars for every claim is ridiculous. Ramseyer and Rasmusen (2010) mentioned about McDonald’s Coffee incident when Ms. Liebeck received $2.86 million for a coffee spill. If McDonald’s keeps satisfying every injured person with the money they demand, their business will be penniless. Instead, a cap should be placed on the amount being settled for the accuser. For example, the company can announce that for every incident occurred and if their case is valid, they will receive $100,000. Especially because the company’s only way of not going bankrupt is by increasing their prices. Every customer that purchase food at …show more content…
A bill was passed in Texas in 2003 capping damages for pain and suffering from malpractice claims at $250,000. Another bill issued in California limit’s plaintiffs’ leverage by initiating a Malpractice and Injury Compensation Reform Act, which limits “pain and suffering” damages to $250,000 as well. Although private teaching hospitals are shielded from malpractice claims through “sovereign immunity” they capped their damages at $300,000 per incident in Florida. While granting these limits, the plaintiffs are still receiving a large amount of money. Additionally this helps lower income level families to not suffer in the process. Thus, tort reform is helpful and must be established in all companies (Trend: medical malpractice tort reform.