Sunday, April 1, 2007

Debunking the Considerable Exaggerations of "Jackpot Justice"

Let the debunking continue.

Last week, a "study" was released by Pacific Research called "Jackpot Justice" that claimed the "real costs" of the tort system was $865B.

The Becker-Posner Blog has now weighed in with Judge Richard Posner sorting through some of the fictitious claims and double-dipping that was used to trump the numbers up as high as possible. Professor Gary Becker agrees with Posner that "the authors of the study considerably exaggerate the cost of the tort system" while he goes on to recommend some of his own ideas to help an imperfect system. (Hat tip to TortsProf)

This debunking can be added to the one from The Blawgletter (Does Tort Litigation Kill People?) the other day.

Ted Frank at Overlawyered loved it, sight unseen.

Labels: Frivolous Claims, tort reform

posted by Eric Turkewitz  # Permanent Link

Comments:

Since you mentioned me by name, perhaps you can identify the precise words that led you to misrepresent my opinion as "Ted Frank loved it, sight unseen"?

# posted by  Ted F. : April 02, 2007 3:19 PM

 

perhaps you can identify the precise words that led you to misrepresent my opinion as "Ted Frank loved it, sight unseen"?

Sure, these are the words that led me to that comment:
"I haven't had a chance to analyze the PRI report in detail, but their figure of $865 billion/year ... is around the right order of magnitude"

I found it a bit odd that someone from a "think tank" would cite a study approvingly without having given it a good read.

In any event, I see you have now
posted your comments regarding the Posner/Becker blogs on the study at Point of Law and folks should feel free to go check it out the same as the did the other links I provided.

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : April 03, 2007 7:06 AM

 

Saying that a conclusion looks to be "around the right order of magnitude" after a quick skim, is hardly "loved it, sight unseen." Both the verb and the modifying clause are inaccurate.

The quoted sentence simply states that my opinion is within a sizable range (i.e., between ~$300 billion and ~$3 trillion) consistent with that study's conclusion. I noted that the study considered factors that TTP failed to account for. The only thing I said about the methodology is in part of the sentence you omitted: the understated "it's a little much to expect three-digit accuracy from the estimates the study makes." (I was about to get on a train to New York, yet needed to post the breaking news, or have it be absent from our pages entirely for the day even as it was on the WSJ op-ed page.)

I didn't think the mathematical term "order of magnitude" could so readily be misunderstood as love and approval, especially given the disclaimers in the same sentence, but perhaps I overestimated my audience.

# posted by  Ted F. : April 03, 2007 6:18 PM

 

but perhaps I overestimated my audience.

Alternatively, in your rush to make the train, the clarity of your writing may have suffered (as can happen to anyone), since the impression you left was of a report you were citing quite approvingly without having given it a good read. While you may not have intended such a result, that is the way it originally looked.

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : April 04, 2007 6:55 AM

 

And I note that even after you were corrected, you reposted the precise same text to the DMI blog. Your dishonesty is noted.

# posted by  Ted F. : April 06, 2007 1:32 PM

 

And I note that even after you were corrected, you reposted the precise same text to the DMI blog. Your dishonesty is noted.

Huh? I googled DMI blog to see what you were referring to and came to a site I am unfamiliar with, apparently dealing with progressive politics in NY (http://www.dmiblog.net/). If someone has re-posted something of mine at that site I am unaware of it. Technorati shows no link.

--ET

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : April 06, 2007 1:41 PM

 

I was alerted today that this post had been cross-posted to TortDeform, a site run by a group called the Drum Major Institute. Apparently they also run at least one other blog, called DMI, which Ted errantly mentioned instead of TortDeform.

Just for the record, I don't have any posting privileges to TortDeform. They have my permission to copy such posts as they find interesting and add them to their site, giving me credit as a guest contributor.

--ET

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : April 10, 2007 10:14 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.