Tort Law - A Shield for the Public, Not an Achilles' Heal

A recent article in the New York Post titled 'Tort threat' is a tri-state jobs-killer, provides the insurance industry's take on tort law in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  Once again, the New York Post has turned its opinion page over to a mouthpiece for big business and the insurance industry in an attempt to sway people's view against a right of recovery for those who have been injured.  In contrast to the New York Post, we think the right to make a claim for personal injury is one that needs to be protected rather than diminished.  The notion that so-called "tort reform" should be implemented as a means of economic stimulus is just plain silly.  No economist (unless big business and the insurance industry have managed to place one on their payroll) has ever suggested that such a plan makes economic sense.  But that won't stop insurance and big business from making the argument.  Shame on the New York Post, however, for publishing such propaganda.  Reducing the amount of money a plaintiff can be awarded  in order to create jobs or reduce taxes does not make economic sense.  Rather, such a concept simply shifts the burden and hardship for paying for this economic reshuffling, placing it squarely on the shoulders of those who have already been injured.  Where is the justice in that?  Furthermore, doing so would deprive an injured person of the opportunity to present his or her case to a jury of peers.  Our judicial system relies on people to come to a decision together and make a just determination.  Apparently, the New York Post believes that although our citizens are smart enough to decide life and death matters in criminal cases (literally), they are not smart enough to do so in civil cases.  We disagree; We believe that juries are more than able to decide cases.  Moreover, what the article fails to mention is that every case is already potentially subject to at least two layers of review.  Both the trial judge, and then an appellate panel of judges (if an appeal is taken) review a jury's determination both to see if it was supported by the evidence and to ensure that the award does not deviate from what has previously been awarded for similar injuries.  Such double layered review already ensures that so-called "frivolous" cases do not result in awards.  On the other hand, the article's proposal would do nothing more than shield people who hurt others from the consequences of their own negligence.  While big business and the insurance industry would certainly benefit from such mislabeled "reform," injured people -- and society as a whole -- would pay the price.  We firmly believe that all of us should continue to be responsible for our own actions.  Pieces like this are written for the purpose of keeping us -- trial lawyers -- from helping people who have been injured by outside forces that they cannot control.  Don't fall for it.