Is Tort Reform a Good Idea?

Tort reform is a controversial subject and has been one of the most debated policy issues in recent times. It is a result of too many frivolous lawsuits being filed that cannot be reasonably supported under the existing legal precedent. It takes a broader rhetorical definition to describe successful tort lawsuits that are seemingly without merit, or where the judgments seem too high relative to the harm. Advocates generally argue that the present tort system is too expensive, and that the system is not even-handed because the amount of per capita tort costs varies significantly from state to state.
One common ground in the tort reform debate is the inconsistencies of the legislatures. Many want no limits of any type of private litigants. Examples when they talk about pitiful little plaintiffs victimized by doctors and hospitals and pill-makers, not to mention store owners who have slippery floors, and how “artificial” it would be for the Legislature to impose caps of any kind.
“How can a legislator say how much the life of a child is worth?” is the typical somber intonation. Truth is legislators do that all the time. And up until 20 years ago, their firm position (from which they've been forced to retreat only slightly) is that the life of a child is not worth a penny, at least if the child perishes due to the negligent act or omission of any state agency or employee.
Before 1982, “sovereign immunity” was ironclad law in the state of Mississippi. The parents of a lad struck by a speeding bread truck could sue the bakery for money damages. The parents of a lad struck by an alderman speeding in a city car would find the courthouse door locked. No suits for damages were allowed against state or local governments if the allegation was negligence.
The Supreme Court, not the Legislature, has worked to change all that. In a case decided 20 years ago, Pruett vs. City of Rosedale, the justices made clear the injustice had gone on long enough. If the state or its employees were negligent, the state should pay. Lawmakers were told to create a mechanism to do so. Cities and counties were told to do what bakeries do: Buy insurance.
None of this happened quickly, of course. The Legislature dithered and delayed and danced around, failing to pass the Mississippi Tort Claims Act for at least another decade. And guess what? When they finally did start allowing state and local governments to be sued, they included all sorts of stipulations and of course, caps. That's right. If a child is killed by the negligent act of, say, a school bus driver, the family may now get damages. But not more than the amount of the school district's insurance coverage.
So the answer to the somber question “who is deciding the value of a child's life?” Well, in Mississippi the lawmakers are, at least when the government is being sued.
And guess what else? It's still not clear, but if a private doctor cuts off the wrong leg of a patient, the sky's the limit on suing for the dastardly deed. But if the doctor is a state doctor, working at a state medical center, the damages will be “capped”.
One important perspective is that plaintiff's attorneys are real industry in many states. The Legislature, though, is all for caps and shields for themselves. But set any such limits in the real world? Not a chance. Isn't it funny how the ones who write the laws don't have to abide by them?