TortDeform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

Cyrus Dugger

Op-Ed on Tort “Reform” in the West Virginia Record by Cyrus Dugger

Last week I had an interesting op-ed published in the West Virginia Record: Sue as I say, not as I sue.

Here’s an excerpt…

Sue as I say, not as I sue


Wednesday, November 22, 2006

By CYRUS DUGGER

NEW YORK — In recent years, the courts of West Virginia have been a favorite target of the self-labeled tort “reform” movement.

In West Virginia, and across the nation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and state chambers are attempting to push forward what they term tort “reforms.” These legislative initiatives limit, constrict, and sometimes eliminate Americans’ ability to go to court when they are injured by others’ misconduct.

Of course, these chambers of commerce represent corporate business interests, and the fact that they are so aggressively pushing these initiatives forward must indicate to you that corporations see it as in their financial interest to make it as hard as possible to sue them, no matter what injuries their actions cause. (keep reading op-ed)

Posted at 10:52 AM, Nov 27, 2006 in Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Op-Ed on Tort “Reform” in the West Virginia Record by Cyrus Dugger:

» Op-Ed on Tort "Reform" in the West Virginia Record by Cyrus Dugger from Radio Left
DMI Blog

Cross-posted from DMI's Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog

Last week I had an interesting op-ed published in the Last week I had an interesting op-ed published in the [Read More]

Tracked on November 27, 2006 12:00 PM

Comments

The op-ed has nothing to do with reform, since there's no evidence that Roberts' lawsuit would be affected by proposed reforms. In any event, the op-ed says more about Dugger's willingness to thoughtlessly parrot trial-lawyer talking points regardless of their validity and engage in ad hominem attacks than about reform. Full rebuttal on Overlawyered.

Posted by: Ted | November 28, 2006 12:28 PM

From Ted's "full rebuttal:" That one argues that the law should be changed for the good of society doesn't at all require that one refuse to take advantage of a bad law. There's no requirement that reformers who find themselves in the situation of being plaintiffs abstain from receiving legally available non-economic damages.

Ted, by that logic, Ghandi wouldn't have been a hypocrite if he shot those who refused to join him in nonviolent protests.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | November 28, 2006 05:28 PM

What does that mean? Was shooting people a legally available option for Ghandi?

Did Ghandi engage in his protests as his means of survival, as his profession for profit and personal gain like attorneys do? I don't understand this analogy at all.

Posted by: Jhn | November 29, 2006 12:49 PM