You may have heard of "tort reform." If you are not familiar with this term, it refers generally to the movement (supported by insurance companies, large corporations, and large chambers of commerce) to limit the ability of plaintiffs to recover the full measure of damages in a personal injury lawsuit. [A "tort" is any legal claim against another that is not based upon a contract. For example, a rear-end car accident, assault, battery or fraud are all torts.]
The groups and people who want to push "tort reform" have been very effective at spreading myths, despite the fact that these myths are not based in reality.
One of the myths is that lawsuits hurt small businesses, and need to be stopped. The implication, and the reason this myth is effective, is that lawsuits hurt small businesses, which puts your job in danger. Of course, this is not true, and the only thing endangered are the rights of people who have been wronged by others.
Not even businesses are buying this lie. In a recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business, lawsuits ranked 71st out of 75 concerns. This study ranked Using Social Media to Promote Business (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as a larger concern than lawsuits. That study can be found
here.
We have had plenty of claims and lawsuits against businesses. As far as I know, they are all still in business. In one recent case, the defendant business denied liability, causing my client great harm, and anguish. He was badly injured in a car accident, and underwent a very painful, invasive and expensive surgery in an attempt to fix his leg.
The defendant blamed my client for the accident. Then, after years of denying liability, on the eve of trial, the defendant admitted liability. The business was not harmed. This was not an abusive lawsuit. Who was harmed? My client was harmed. Who acted abusively? Was it my client, who merely sought compensation for the harms and losses caused by the defendant? Or was it the defendant, who strung out the process, needlessly incurred legal fees, tied up the courts, and caused my client additional mental anguish, all in an effort to avoid responsibility and save a buck?
In another case, my client was badly injured when a light fixture fell from the ceiling and hit her in the head. The light fixture had just been installed by an employee of the company. The light fixture hit my client on her head, splitting her head open and knocking her out. She required 20 staples on the top of her head, and had a very bad concussion. There was blood all over the floor and she was taken out by paramedics to the hospital. Despite the fact that the business had to clean up blood on his floor, and there had been paramedics there to retrieve my unconscious client, the defendant denied that the incident had happened at all. As a result, my client was forced to file a lawsuit. Again, who is abusive? The person who was badly injured through no fault of her own? Or the business that negligently hurt my client, then denied that the accident had ever even taken place?
There are doubtlessly lawsuits which should never have been filed. But those make up an incredibly small percentage of the lawsuits are filed every day. This idea of "tort reform" is nothing more than an effort to poison the minds of the public against lawyers and lawsuits.
Pete Clancy is a personal injury attorney in Oakland.