![]() |
||
|
Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY |
||
Wednesday, April 16, 2008Modern Day Tort "Reform" Once upon a time, tort "reform" consisted of asking legislatures for protections and immunities from suits by capping damage awards on the most badly injured of people, so that responsibility shifts from the person/company that did the deed onto the victims to fend for themselves.That's fading away. This is what the new tort "reform" looks like for drug makers: First, ghostwrite "research" that goes out under the name of private doctors; Second, use the research to get FDA approval for your product, or hide contrary information from the overworked, underfunded FDA; Third, use FDA approval to scream for immunity from lawsuits under the doctrine of preemption. Fourth: Find anecdotes of lawyers doing dumb things, like suing for $54M for a pair of pants, to support the theory that the problem is plaintiffs lawyers, and have the Big Business lobbying arms use it for all its worth to distract from the issues. Remember, blame the plaintiffs' lawyers, no matter what you have done wrong. Update 4/17/08: Why is this so effective? Because preemption is a concept understood by less than 1% of the general population. Our elections are about more important things, like what kind of lapel pin a candidate wears. Labels: tort reform
Comments:
You stated this very well Eric. I've written on the subject of the tort deformers, Madison Avenue and those who misuse the judicial system. Just claiming lawsuits are all frivolous is itself a frivolous claim. Jurors who take this attitude to the jury box are being un-American. Our system of civil justice has worked well throughout the history of this country. What is not working well is a corporate culture that entices people to set aside their common sense to improve the bottom line of a system based purely on corporate profit. Somewhere in Madison Avenue's message corporate greed had taken a front row seat to common sense and decency. The McDonald's verdict was correct, the Judge was wrong for taking part of it away. McDonald's attitude was abrasive, insulting to the jury and to the Plaintiff. Until people understand the facts of that case they shouldn't be so quick to criticize the jury verdict. Madison Avenue continues to spin the real issue in that case. It wasn't that the coffee was just hot, hell that's what Mrs. Liebeck asked for, hot coffee. It was how hot the coffee was served. McDonalds own expert testified the coffee was so hot it couldn't be consumed, thus making it inedible.
Post a Comment
Remember that we can all be that Plaintiff who has the one unplanned mishap ending up sitting in a court room asking to be treated fairly. Not everyone who uses the civil justice system and asks for damages can be a fraud. Nor can their claims all be frivolous. What is frivolous though are the assertions by Corporate America for immunity from responsibility. When did it become an American right to plead for freedom from responsibility? If you want our children to mature and to develop responsible values, then stop sending mixed messages, like corporate America (Wall Street and drug companies for a start) have the right to lie, cheat, steal, maim and kill those they pledge to serve and sell too. A few years ago federal preemption for drug companies would never have been proposed. Corporate America thinks the general public is dumb and they are lining up at the tort-deform trough like pigs in a sty. You don't have to care about the poor schmuck who took the tainted drugs until it's your breadwinner whose lying in the morgue. Then you make your way to the nearest trial lawyer and plead how your case is somehow different then all the rest, and you just didn't know what or who you were voting for when you voted in a tort deformer. Wake up folks you're just as vulnerable as that person who sits in the court room asking for justice and who you stare at assuming all the while he/she must be a fraud. What you've forgotten is that you're staring at your own future. Steve Lombardi, desmoines.injuryboard.com Links to this post: << Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may 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.) 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.
|
Subscribe by EmailAbout the authorEric Turkewitz has litigated New York personal injury and medical malpractice cases for 20 years, and is the founder of The Turkewitz Law Firm in New York. His firm's website is at www.TurkewitzLaw.com. View by Label
Welcome New Visitors
|
|
|
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm |
||
|
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog: |
||
|
|
Design by Lidija Tomas Design / Studio 4D |