While I always knew there was a difference in the types of legal cases such as criminal and civil, I was not aware of Tort law. According to Lau & Johnson (2011). “A tort can be broadly defined as a civil wrong, other than breach of contract” Simply stated, a Tort is some type of civil wrong that causes harm or loss. These law suits are brought for reasons such as personal injury, consumer protection or defamation. It is argued by many that current tort laws are unfair and that very high, even unfair, amounts of compensation are being paid out as a result of theses cases. This has brought of the discussion of Tort Reform. In essence, Tort Reform is looking to limit the number of cases by limiting the types of cases that can be filed, when
…show more content…
Under the current system, the court systems spend a lot of money on personal injury lawsuits. According to von Spakovsky, “When it comes to the U.S. tort system, we are talking about real money because the tort system costs us billions every year. A 2007 estimate was that the total cost was $252 billion--almost $1,000 for every person in the country.”(2010). Those in favor of tort reform propose that by changing the current tort laws it will lessen the amount of lawsuits that qualify and reduce the amount that courts must spend hearing tort cases and permit juries to focus on more important cases. It is also believed that tort reform will help corporations avoid paying excessive amounts in punitive damages. In agreement with the need for Tort reform, G.W. Bush asked Congress to pass a limit on punitive damages. While congress did not completely agree, they did pass some tort reform laws within specific industries such as the firearm and airplane manufacturing industries (Lau & Johnson, …show more content…
One of the larger questions that has been argued for many years is with regard to U.S. organizations who have moved their business overseas to avoid such tort laws. In an attempt to avoid tort law, companies have left the United States, and opened operations overseas. An over 200 year old federal law, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) allowed ambassadors and other foreign nationals to sue in U.S. federal courts for assaults or other offenses committed in violation of international law. This same statute was used to argue cases citing the right to bring tort cases against companies that have moved overseas, but there was continuous differences in the decisions of these cases. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, deciding that “holding that the so-called “Alien Tort Claims Act” or “Alien Tort Statute” (ATS) is subject to the “presumption against extraterritoriality” and thus usually will not apply to claims involving alleged human rights abuses or other violations of international law alleged to have occurred in foreign countries.” (Bedard, Nelson, Spaziano, 2013) While other laws have been put in place to deal with human rights abuses, there are still many that argue the ATS is relevant, and should still be considered in certain
Under the current system, the court systems spend a lot of money on personal injury lawsuits. According to von Spakovsky, “When it comes to the U.S. tort system, we are talking about real money because the tort system costs us billions every year. A 2007 estimate was that the total cost was $252 billion--almost $1,000 for every person in the country.”(2010). Those in favor of tort reform propose that by changing the current tort laws it will lessen the amount of lawsuits that qualify and reduce the amount that courts must spend hearing tort cases and permit juries to focus on more important cases. It is also believed that tort reform will help corporations avoid paying excessive amounts in punitive damages. In agreement with the need for Tort reform, G.W. Bush asked Congress to pass a limit on punitive damages. While congress did not completely agree, they did pass some tort reform laws within specific industries such as the firearm and airplane manufacturing industries (Lau & Johnson, …show more content…
One of the larger questions that has been argued for many years is with regard to U.S. organizations who have moved their business overseas to avoid such tort laws. In an attempt to avoid tort law, companies have left the United States, and opened operations overseas. An over 200 year old federal law, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) allowed ambassadors and other foreign nationals to sue in U.S. federal courts for assaults or other offenses committed in violation of international law. This same statute was used to argue cases citing the right to bring tort cases against companies that have moved overseas, but there was continuous differences in the decisions of these cases. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, deciding that “holding that the so-called “Alien Tort Claims Act” or “Alien Tort Statute” (ATS) is subject to the “presumption against extraterritoriality” and thus usually will not apply to claims involving alleged human rights abuses or other violations of international law alleged to have occurred in foreign countries.” (Bedard, Nelson, Spaziano, 2013) While other laws have been put in place to deal with human rights abuses, there are still many that argue the ATS is relevant, and should still be considered in certain