Cyrus Dugger

Response To: A Supreme Court Justice Begins the Tort “Reform” Movement

I thought I’d publish an interesting response to the cross-post on Daily Kos of A Supreme Court Justice Begins the Tort “Reform” Movement by mcgorn.

Whenever debating this issue be sure to always call “Tort Reform” what it really is “corporate Cost Shifting/Corporate welfare”.

We, as a society take it as a cultural truth that there are too many lawsuits and overzealous lawyers are ruining it for everyone. Thus most people when asked causully about “tort reform” are all in favor of it. But if you can engage them on the nitty gitty; most would hate its results. Thus the key is to help them see that.

He’s the brilliant example (of a real case mind you)my Torts professor used that was in a large part why I personally saw the light:

“Back when Coke bottles were made of glass, certain number of them would occassionaly explode upon opening sending shards of glass flying (Much like the occassional champagne bottle does today)

This Explosion was not caused by mishandling, nor a defect in the bottle, but it was simply a random occurance of several factors all impossible to predict. So no matter how careful Coca-Cola Inc. is (and they are being as careful as possible) this will continue to happen.

Now suppose a woman opens just such an explosive bottle and the glass shrps do terrible damage to the tendons in her wrist causing $50,000 in medical damages (for surgery and the like). She sues Coke for damages, should they have to pay?”

Now most people’s first instinct is to say “hell No they didn’t do anything wrong!” This is because countless hours of TV drama have taught us to the view the Tort system as a way to punish wrongdoers not restore economic inequities.

So now in proper Socratic fashion, you ask the follow-up question:
“so you think it is fair that the woman, a minimum wage waitress, say, should just be stuck with a giant medical bill? What did she do wrong?”

and that too offends most people’s sense of justice as well. Now this is where you point out that SOMEBODY has to pay the $50,000 that loss occured and someone has to bear it, fair or not. So is it MORE fair to stick these random losses on random people who have to bear their full brunt? OrShould Coke, who is after all MAKING money selling the bottles, pay?

IF random explosions of Coke bottles are a fact of life; then so are injuries resulting from them. Which means that they are, or should be, part of the cost of doing business for Coke just like advertising or production. Moreover, while that $50,000 would bankrupt the average person; Coke can recoup it and any other losses like it by adding a penny or two to the cost of every bottle sold.

And then after explaining that, when you ask the question again: “should she win?” you get a very different answer.

And that is the naked economic truth of the thing. Business hate tort suits not because they are unfair; but because if they can con the legislatures into capping and/or eliminating them; they can transfer part of their costs of doing business onto other people and thus enjoy greater profits. (link)

Posted at 6:30 PM, Jan 12, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)