Justinian: I like your disclaimer. Are you afraid of being sued? Do you really believe that in a million years, your disclaimer will protect you in any way?

The site is info about torts, not tort reform. The Definitions should be a single link on the left. Once on the definition page, then link to the rest.

Have Definitions on the left. Then list aspects of reform.

Who Proposes

Who Opposes

Proposals.

For each:
Advantages
Disadvantages

Real World Data

Limits on Tort Claims in:
Rules of Conduct
Rules of Evidence
Rules of Civil Procedure

Current Underutilized Defense Tactics as Reform

If you want to really reform torts? Take away all self-dealt immunities of the lawyer, including that of the pro-lawyer, biased, rent seeking, cult criminal on the bench. Let torts do its work on lawyer tortfeasor carelessness. If the lawyer believes torts are good for everyone, why would the lawyer want to deprive himself of their great benefit.

Ending lawyer lies, criminality, and hypocrisy would be the greatest tort reform.

Justinian,

I haven't been through all the subcategories yet, but I think the opening page violates your stated neutrality position when it says: "While each tort reform law is different, they all are designed to either limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue, limit how much money juries may award to injured people, or both." That really isn't true.

Some reforms do actually limit potential payouts, e.g., damage caps, repeals or modifications of joint and several liability, or collateral source rule repeal. And some might limit the conditions under which potential plaintiffs can sue, e.g., medical screening panels, regulatory preemptions, venue changes, some contingency fee reforms, or tightening class certification requirements.

But other tort reforms don't fall under those characterizations at all. For example, evidentiary reforms -- like the Daubert rule -- merely raise the bar for entering expert testimony; and they at least in theory cut both ways -- if defendants are the ones trying to introduce bogus testimony, their position is the one disadvantaged. Similarly, a loser pays rule would discourage some classes of suits but enable others, i.e., high probability claims with lower damages, which will never make it to court when the plaintiff must bear his attorney's full costs. ATRA and ALEC both propose a "Jury Patriotism Act" designed to make it harder to opt out of -- and more remunerative to be on -- jury service; although adding more individuals who work for a living to the jury pool may indirectly lower the expected return of certain types of suits, I think it's hard to characterize this reform as limiting damages or reducing court access. And reforming appeal bond requirements OPENS access to courts for defendants; it doesn't affect court access for plaintiffs or potential damages, assuming the reforms are structured to protect against corporate dissolution.

Jim, thanks for your comments. Maybe we can work together to come up with something a little more neutral. I'll give it some thought on how best to do that, and by all means send or post any suggestions. But please, no talking points like "Tort reform is the effort to restore the purity to our once-pristine justice system, which has been dishonored by unethical plaintiffs' lawyers who routinely file frivolous 'shakedown' suits against innocent doctors and manufacturers, thus depriving you of medical care, reasonably priced products, and forcing American jobs overseas. Truly, it is the good lord's work.

One problem with the phrase "tort reform" is that it tries to be all things to all people. I have no problems with a properly-applied Daubert rule because, as you say, it does indeed cut both ways. For that reason, I don't think it falls into the same category as say, capping damages or blanket immunity to a certain class of person or business.

I do have one issue with "Jury Patriotism Acts." In one draft I saw, it would apply only to civil trials. Would you agree that if we apply it to civil trials, it should also apply to criminal trials? If it applies to both, it isn't "tort reform" as it doesn't apply just to torts. Again, I wish the phrase "tort reform" hadn't been so overused as to become nearly worthless.

One more thing about jury duty? Can you believe that I've yet to be called for jury duty? My dream is to be called in for a large tort case and have the defense strike me immediately upon recognizing my name. That's when I'll know that I've truly arrived.