In your own words, please write a written opinion of your thoughts on tort reform. You can choose to write about a specific area of tort reform, or the concept on a whole, but please provide at least one page of written dialogue about the concept.

                                                                           TORT REFORM 

The terminology tort reform describes a change in United States civil law system to improve litigation efficiency or reduce litigation’s adverse effects on the economy.
While the phrase “tort reform” might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to limit tort litigation and damages. It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards. The term is also commonly applied to a political movement that advocates several such changes. 

Proponents 

In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too many frivolous lawsuits. 

The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is a legal action that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law, or one that has no basis in fact. The term has acquired a broader rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform, where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe successful tort lawsuits that critics believe are without merit, or award high damages relative to actual damages. 

Tort reform advocates argue that the present tort system is too expensive, that meritless lawsuits clog up the courts, that per capita tort costs vary significantly from state to state, and that trial attorneys customarily receive an unusually large percentage of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs in tort cases. High-profile tort cases are often portrayed by the media as the legal system’s version of a lottery, where trial lawyers actively seek the magic combination of plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury. 

A few of the changes frequently advocated include limits on punitive damages, limits on non-economic damages, use of court-appointed expert witnesses, elimination of elections for judges, “venue reform”, which limits the jurisdictions within which one can file a lawsuit, limits on contingency fees, the adoption of the English Rule of “loser pays” (the defeated party must pay both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expenses), and requiring. that class action lawsuits with nationwide plaintiffs be tried in federal courts, eliminating awards for pre-judgment interest.

Opponents of tort reform contend that supporters exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits of the current tort system. For example, opponents of tort reform contend that lawsuits encourage corporations to produce safer products, discourage them from selling dangerous products such as asbestos, and encourage more safe and effective medical practices. 

Beginning in the early 1980s, Professor Stephen Teret and other faculty at The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health argued that tort litigation was an important tool for the prevention of injuries. Teret identified several ways that litigation can enhance safety for everyone, including: 

1) to avoid paying future damages, the creators of dangerous products or conditions may voluntarily make them safer; 

2) where conduct is particularly egregious, courts may award punitive damages to deter that conduct in the future; 

3) the process of gathering information prior to trial – called ‘discovery’ – can bring information to light that can be used by policy-makers to create new laws or regulations.”

Opponents of tort reform deny claims of tort reform advocates that there is “litigation explosion” or “liability crisis”
“, and they contend that the changes proposed by tort reform
advocates are unjustified. Records maintained by the National Center for State Courts show that population-adjusted tort filings declined from 1992 to 2001. The average change in tort filings was a 15% decrease. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division of the Department of Justice (DOJ, found that the number of civil trials dropped by 47% between 1992 and 2001. The DOJ also found that the median inflation-adjusted award in all tort cases dropped 56.3% between 1992 and 2001 to $28,000. 

Tort reform opponents argue that corporations and insurance companies are the worst abusers of the litigation system. In particular, they contend, corporations often use their enormous resources to unfairly delay trial, pursue frivolous appeals, and contest claims in which liability is clear. In response, a number of tort reform supporters argue that that criticism is not a reason to oppose tort reform; such abuse would be deterred by proposed tort reforms such as “loser pays,” which would prevent large corporations from using litigation as a cudgel against individuals and small businesses who cannot afford to defend themselves in court by providing an incentive for law firms to provide contingent defense. Opponents of tort reform contend that most private citizens would be afraid to sue wealthy corporations or insurers if they could be bankrupted by an award of the defendant’s legal fees if they lost. This would limit legitimate claims, and effectively deny many citizens a forum to redress the harm caused them.