Question

Question: Question:Is Tort Reform Necessary? It is common to hear about "Tort reform" in the news today. What is usually being referred to is a proposal to limit the damages that plaintiffs can receive from winning a lawsuit, or limiting what the plaintiff's attorney can receive in compensation. Is Tort reform necessary? Why or why not? Give examples, with details, supporting your argument. Note: If you use the famous McDonald's Hot Coffee case (or any other case for that matter) as an example, make sure you read the ENTIRE circumstances and reasoning involved with the case. DO NOT rely on the completeness of the version you might hear from the talking head news commentators.

Answer 1

Tort: Tort means wrongful act or infringement of right leading to legal liability. Here plaintiff can ask for compensation for wrongful act of other. Now Tort reforms mean proposed changes to civil justice system that aims to reduce the liability of victims to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive.

Yes, according to me tort reform is necessary. In Mc Donald case, even through company had done nothing wrong it was fined millions of dollar. Liebeck, the plaintiff in this case poured coffee on her legs accidently which resulted in third degree burn. This was not the fault of company has coffee was produced as per prevailing norms in the industry. Many called this case as poster child for tort reform. Many times customer sue large corporation for bigger compensation even through they are not worth it. This results in increased loss to corporate for doing nothing wrong. This also discourage large corporation from investing in the country.

If Tort reforms are not done, it results in more and more cases against corporates for no fault of theirs which might results in collapse of corporate which leads to loss of jobs for many. This type of cases also encourage people to be negligent in their day to day activity as they feel they can claim compensation for every thing.