Skip to main content

I know these Diaries are read by a bunch of highly intelligent people who are well versed in many of the political intricacies of American culture and law. Indeed, better versed than I, if truth be known.

Sometimes though there are those rare occasions where some confusion might arise as to what might be a reasonable liberal or progressive stance on a topic.

One of those is "Tort Reform".

We all grin wryly at the suggestion that Mrs Smith from Boise, Idaho, should be awarded $2 million because her McApple Pie was a tad on the warm side, or that Billy Ray Munster might get $3 million "pain and suffering" when he fell off his washing machine trying to change a lightbulb, because Samsung didn't label the machine "Not For Standing On" ... I made both of those up by the way, and teh Google will not help you. Google will help you find many other similar examples.

Should an individual be awarded punitive damages that do not simply mitigate the harm caused, but allow that person to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of their lives, and similarly enrich a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers?

Somehow it doesn't seem fair. After all, we all end up picking up the tab through increased costs, because if the corporations do not pass those costs on they will eventually go broke. Jobs will be lost, families devastated and the poor shareholders and Executives might be forced down to their last Range Rover.

This is a difficult argument for progressives to make because we feel some sympathy ... Mr Munster doesn't actually deserve all that money, and accidents do happen.

The thing is, it isn't really an argument about tort, or punitive damages, or compensation for loss. It is an argument about effective regulation.

So successful has the right been in preventing decent consumer protections, blocking sensible regulation in the name of freedom, and Capitalism, that corporations are free to behave with impunity. There is nothing you can do to gain redress from the negligence of a large company. You are not big enough, rich enough or important enough for anyone to care. Everyone knows that microwaved apple pies have the internal temperature of a small scale nuclear reactor, the fact that you didn't, or your child didn't, is not the negligence of McWendys, but your own stupid fault!

Absent any real consumer protections, the only check on the excesses of corporations is the real prospect of having their asses sued into oblivion. It is a blunt instrument, it is inefficient at best, but it remains all we have.

So now the Koch Bothers, and ALEC have managed to remove or forestall our protections what they need to do now is pass Tort Reform Legislation. When they have accomplished that you will have no redress, no protection, no chance of preventing aircraft operators from using grey market parts, or your doctor from leaving half of his surgical equipment in your abdomen.

If we can mange to pass the kind of consumer regulations that protect citizens, those same regulations will offer enormous protections to decent corporations, because they will reduce the competition from the crooked ones.

If we cannot impose regulations, then tort takes the place. Poorly, inadequately it must be said, but it is all we have.

Allow tort reform without balancing laws, and we may as well sell our children into labour at one dollar an hour .... because there will be nothing to stop it happening.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 09:51:22 PM PST

  •  The Victim Should Be Made Whole, But the Perp Must (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, webranding, palantir

    be punished meaningfully.

    The way to do this with supersized corporations is to split the award, making the victim economically whole to the nth degree, and giving the punitive damages sufficient to suppress repeat offenses to the federal general fund.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 09:56:14 PM PST

    •  I don't care much (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      webranding, palantir

      where the punitive damages go.

      I would prefer simply to see better consumer protections enforced by a Federal process that has real teeth.

      When we get that, we could probably end most punitive damages.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:00:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but where the damages go (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        drives the system. Whatever group of people gets them will have an incentive push the system as far as possible.

        This is a flaw in the tort system.

        But there is no better system.

        Regulation is well and good, but the tort system is needed for areas where regulation has not been applied.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:30:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VetGrl

          And if you have a strong regulatory framework it protects both sides of the argument.

          That would dispose of many of the frivolous suits, and reduce the punitive damages while still offering real protection.

          Right now, tort is so often the only solution, and that too is a massive flaw but the right would have much of the tort removed, leaving .... ?

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe, maybe not (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, Villanova Rhodes

            The tort system does a lot more good than you're giving it credit for.  If the threat of a lawsuit is kept in mind, a whole lot of harm gets prevented.  And a large punitive damages award can shake up a whole industry, which is what we want to happen.

            Don't get me wrong.  I'm very much in favor of safety regulations.  But they won't capture everything (a design defect, for example), they might not provide sufficient compensation to injured parties, and regulations themselves can be abused.

            On that last point, I recall an investigative piece in, I think, the Washington Post some years back.  It had to do with FDA approval of either drugs or devices (I'm really reaching into the memory bank here!) and how industry was making the argument that the productrs were per se safe because if they weren't then approval would not have been granted.

            The remedial provisions of regulatory frameworks are also not immune from abuse.  I've seen this in my own field, not often but enough that it's a point worth considering.

            Anyway, thanks very much for the early morning thought provocation.  I really like posts like this one.

          •  How does a regulation decide the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kevskos, Villanova Rhodes

            facts of a particular situation?

            Please, "frivolous suits" us the label use to denigrate any law suit(s) you don't like. Doctors who don't like to be called up for their sloppy care and poor practices that injures people insist that they are the victim of "frivolous suits." They aren't much of a problem and the remedy is in a long standing rule.

            Rule 11 of Civil Procedure provides That anyone can make a motion for penalties for frivolous suits or pleadings. The penalties can include fining the attorneys and even dismissing the case. If a defendant feels a suit is frivolous or without merit he can simple ask that it be dismissed. He can also ask that a suit be dismissed for failure to state a claim ā€” and for a number of other reasons under Rule 12b.

            You are picking up the Republican/conservative argument designed to protect corporations and others for being responsible for the damage they cause. Your Seventh Amendment rights to trial by jury is being eaten away but should be defended as well and your Second Amendment rights. The 8th Amendment protects against Excess Fines being imposed; don't worry about defendants.

            You can not regulate every detail of life and every thing you come into contact with or the behavior of every person especially because all those things are changing all the time.

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:29:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Punitive damages are so rare in lawsuits (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VetGrl, Kevskos, Villanova Rhodes

      as to not be a problem. They are only awarded for egregious behavior. And the big awards you hear about are almost always reduced in later proceedings.

      We have a common law system as provided in the Constitution. There are reasons that regulations alone cannot solve all problems. There are concepts like "unreasonably dangerous" which cannot be codified for every single thing. There is shared liability and there are all those questions of fact ā€” did the device or action actually cause the damages? Was the Plaintiff partially at fault? What is the proper compensation and for what interests?

      enforced by a Federal process that has real teeth.
      That is called the Judicial process; the courts. And if you want to argue your case against a big or even little corporation then skip the lawyer.

      Hyperbole in putting forth imaginary cases is what people do to denigrate a thing or system. It also shows you don't know what you are talking about.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  qualified rec (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos, Villanova Rhodes

        The last sentence isn't really called for.  The names I recognize in this diary are thoughtful contributors to the site, the sort who appreciate being given the correct information.

        Other than that, excellent comment.  

        Go where the facts take you.

        by VetGrl on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:41:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Would you like to specify (0+ / 0-)

        what it is you don't like about the Diary?

        It seems to me that the Diary was suggesting that we need to resist all efforts to introduce tort reform.

        So then you seem to argue the same thing, then accuse me of hyperbole.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:42:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This Is A Topic Where I Sound Like Rand Paul (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, palantir

    and I don't like that. But come on people, we sue way to much in this nation. I want meaningful regulations. I want my food to be safe. I don't want to take a pill and it could kill me.

    But I don't need my coffee I buy to say it is hot. I don't need a label to inform me putting a dry cleaning bag on my head is not a good idea.

    An example I use, and it is a terrible habit, but I smoke. I don't need to be told smoking is stupid and not good for me. I don't need to be told it is addictive. I get that, otherwise I'd stop.

    Look if I buy a product and it harms me. The company did something wrong, I want to be able to sue them into the ground.

    But we talk about this being a reality based community here. Do we really need all these lawsuits?

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:04:10 PM PST

    •  Yes, we do need them (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      webranding, palantir, nosleep4u, Kevskos

      Because our politicians are not grown up enough to replace them with a system that works.

      We don't have protection, so redress is all we can do.

      For example .... How about making the Credit Agencies legally responsible for the accuracy of the information in their databases?

      Maybe then folk wouldn't have to go to Federal Court to get their files corrected.

      It's a sucky system, but if we stop the lawsuits we will be left with nothing.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:09:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Think We Might Agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, palantir

        and I didn't express myself well. If I buy a product and it harms me I want as you said to be able to sue them into oblivion. I am just sick and tried of what I'd call the "nanny state."

        I was in Walmart the other day. 3:00 AM (I got sleep issues). A person was mopping the floor. There were multiple signs noting the floor was wet and a person standing at the end of the aisle to inform me of this.

        I was like WTF. I can see with my eyes somebody is mopping the floor, therefore it is going to be wet. And water on tile might mean the floor is slippery, so walk with a little caution.

        I just don't need to have signs everywhere telling me this. It is common sense. I don't have a lot of respect for folks that don't have basic common sense.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:19:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I too think we would agree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos

          I understand the "common sense" approach. It's not always so cut and dried though.

          In your example .... Walmart is a very busy place. Folk are pushing carts, avoiding others and looking at shelves, not the floor. So it could be argued that if the floor needs to be wet, to clean it, then that area should be closed until it is safe.

          Many examples are completely outside the consumers power to make a judgment. We rely on providers to make that determination for us, and when the get it wrong we should expect restitution which the law so frequently doesn't provide.

          The Credit Agency example is one such. Selling products that carry little real warranty is another. Sometimes things break, or cause harm, yet manufacturers and retailers are able to hide behind their denial of liability beyond, say, thirty or ninety days. That leaves the customer picking up the tab on their own, when they have the right to expect well made products.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:27:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They are just protecting themselves (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos

          They don't care if you slip and fall except that it would cost them money. And because it has happened to a lot of other people who have been hurt and have sued now stores are more careful about warnings.

          Not everyone is as alert as you or as steady on their legs. Sorry that you have no respect for lesser beings.  And wet floors are not always that obvious. So they are overdoing it. So what?

          So you choose to smoke. But the labels and warnings are for those starting out and those thinking about quitting.

          You need to relax and also to realize you are not the center of the universe.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:44:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Here Is An Example (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        I wrote a Diary a few days ago about how I ordered a DVD through my cable company. I get points I can redeem for stuff. One DVD. This is what I got from them.

        chater_two

        My point was the sheer waste.

        But it actually says on each bag:

        Do not use as a pillow, toy, or flotation device. CAUTION: Keep away from small children.
        Do I really need to be told those things?

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:27:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure that's a good example :) (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          webranding, Villanova Rhodes, Kevskos

          There the packaging company is offering basic advice to prevent folk dreaming up what might seem a reasonable alternate use.

          Even in Europe, where consumer protections are legendary, those warnings would appear simply as a caution. So you don't need to be told, but others might.

          Water wings are designed as "flotation aids", but they are not "life preservers" ... it gets into grey areas.

          We hear about the ridiculous suits that are brought, but tort is also used to satisfy many real grievances.

          My point is that if you reduce or restrict the right to redress, then there is nothing left to help when real harm is caused by negligence.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:33:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look I Am With You. Tort Is Important (0+ / 0-)

            I just want a happy medium. If I can't get a loan cause a credit agency has info about me that isn't accurate I want a way to address that, and if needed, by a law suit.

            But do you really need to print on a bag this shouldn't be used as a flotation device? Look this will sound kind of cruel, but maybe we ought to weed those folks out of the gene pool.

            I've always worked for small business. And it is tough out there. I now work for myself. I wonder if I might send somebody a product I make and I don't use packing that says "don't use as a flotation device" can I be sued?

            When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

            by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:43:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Another reason we need them: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VetGrl, twigg

        The weak social safety net, poor social mobility, and ever-weakening public education.

        Someone harmed by a corporation badly enough they can no longer work literally has no choice but to go for a big payoff in the court system. The alternative is poverty -- not just for them but also probably for their descendants for generations. That is a huge incentive to litigate as much as possible.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:46:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But Credit Agencies ARE legally (0+ / 0-)

        responsible for the accuracy of their databases. However it is cheaper to ignore any problems and to favor creditors (who pay them) over ordinary people.

        They are IGNORING the LAW. So what do you want?

        The only thing that will stop them is to make it too damned expensive to persist in their sloppy ways.

        That is what the Court system is all about. Other countries have court systems too. But we have unusually rapacious businesses and sharp practices are encouraged.

        Those that try to enforce the system are denigrated as this diarist does.

        I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

        by samddobermann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:37:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, we do need all these lawsuits (4+ / 0-)

      The plaintiff doesn't need to win, but he or she needs to be able to sue. Manufacturers cannot be trusted to regulate themselves to decide whether a danger is so blatant it doesn't need a warning. Better a jury, made up of fellow consumers/workers decide whether or not something is so well known as to be an obvious danger to anyone.
      I understand that most readers here are aware, alert and informed, but that isn't a reflection of the entire world of workers and consumers in this country.

      Repeal Amendment 2. Now.

      by bornadem on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:49:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We cannot say there are too MANY tort suits (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VetGrl, twigg, samddobermann, Kevskos

      unless we have a good count of the number of injuries from which a lawsuit could arise. This little matter of a denominator is almost never part of the conversation when this is hashed out in popular discussions, but is well understood in some academic literature. It's highly likely that we have too few suits, not too many, at least if we want the tort system to perform a regulatory function.

      Identifying frivolous suits -- which do exist but are hardly ever represented by the scare stories that the tort "reform" lobby puts out -- tells you only that there are suits that shouldn't be brought, and nothing about whether the total number of suits is too low or too high.

      Take medical malpractice -- do we have a crisis? Yes, we do. There's too much medical malpractice occurring. That doesn't mean we have too many medical malpractice suits. We probably have too few, or have too drastically strangled damage awards. Otherwise the rate of preventable medical misadventures would be lower. (Alternatively, medicine may be one of the areas that is not efficiently regulated by tort law; it doesn't work for everything.) The salience of an unjust suit against a doctor -- and most of us can think of at least one -- is not a substitute for research into how effective and efficient the system actually is.

      Likewise, the existence of auto accident fraud rings tells us nothing about whether we have too many accident lawsuits. It tells us that some suits are based on fraud, not whether there is sufficient access to lawyers, courts, and adequate verdicts to guarantee reasonable access to justice. How many bankruptcies occur because of uncompensated accidental injuries caused by someone else? I don't know, but I'd sure look to know before I concluded there are too many accident suits.

      Don't buy the hype. The push is on to destroy both tort law (greedy ambulance chasing trial lawyers) and regulation (jackbooted thugs from big gubmint). We've probably already passed the high point of consumer safety in the U.S.

      Not entirely a response to you, webranding, but as good a place as any.

  •  I am familiar with Personal Injury. (8+ / 0-)

    I have been working in that field for over 20 years.

    Please don't allow anyone to tell you that you should support limitations on citizens rights to seek justice in the courts.  Simply put, this is NOT in your best interest.  Those who want to limit your rights are not your friends.   A tremendous amount of astroturf spin propaganda has been spread around the country in the last couple generations, about how horrible it is for injured people to have a way to recover for their losses caused by negligence.      

    I can highly recommend a documentary that simplifies the issues surrounding lawsuits and access to the courts.  It's called "Hot Coffee".  Please take the time to watch it.  Your library may have it.  

  •  You personally don't (4+ / 0-)

    but you'd be surprised at the idiotic things people do. (Or maybe you wouldn't.) Yes, there's a real-world reason the label on extension ladders says not to duct-tape them together.

    Labeling is often aimed at the dumbest customer in the gene pool.

    Sometimes labeling is changed because a new manager wants to mark his territory.

    The dumbest label I ever saw was on a little pack of wet-wipes at a restaurant: "Open package and use." Not kidding.

    My point being, there are tons of reasons a label gets to be stupid ... and many of those reasons have nothing to do with the tort system.

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:38:53 PM PST

    •  oops, meant as reply to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg

      webranding's packaging comment.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I figured it out :) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        webranding, Kevskos

        As I said to webranding ... even where tough regulations exist, manufacturers still provide basic warnings. Most of them seem a bit silly, but they are actually sensible and they certainly do no harm.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:43:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I Think You Are Making My Point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VetGrl

      I as a person or company can't factor in "stupid." Where does it end? Look if you make a substandard product. A product that harms people I want you sued into the ground. I think even demand that is our right.

      But my gosh things are out of control.

      I joked in another comment that I feel like Rand Paul saying these things. In another I mentioned the "Nanny State." That is how I feel.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:55:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  See I Will Admit I Am Confused Here (0+ / 0-)

    I always worked for small companies. My confusion is that we never made a product where we needed the government to regulate us. A sub-par product would mean we'd have less  business, therefore it was not something offered. We wanted to offer the "better" product.

    Now I get that the billion dollar corporation is looking to cut corners. Make maybe .01 on this or that. And that is a powerful thing. But I really wish the market would force them out.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 11:04:57 PM PST

    •  You may be unusual (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      Small companies take risks every day.

      From medical malpractise, to car mechanis, to plumbers not fitting a heating appliance correctly .... They all have to be bonded against their own errors.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:41:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clue: The market does not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, Villanova Rhodes

      work very well. Crap sells. Walmart makes billions a penny at a time.

      But small businesses are not all like you. And there are a lot of crooks out there or just sloppy workers or just greedy people. After a while they just leave town and start over somewhere else.

      The market does not solve problems. It exploits opportunities.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:12:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Woman's small child dies from (0+ / 0-)

    choking on a piece of hot dog. Woman upset that no one told her child could choke on a piece of hot dog. Who is to blame?

    I have opinions....

  •  Tort = BS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes

    Tort reform is astroturfed nonsense with a minimal economic impact.  

    The reforms aslo have been shown to have no positive effects to rates of insurance - in fact the opposite.

    Subverting right to trial by jury and due process is not excusable in any way whatsoever.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site