Mississippi Republicans trying to slam the courthouse doors but only on the 99%

Mississippi Republicans are trying to slam the courthouse doors by trying to enact a blatently unconstitutional loser pays statute, but only on plaintiffs who are represented by contingency fee agreements.  In other words, corporations or individuals who are rich enough to pay an attorney by the hour to file a lawsuit can sue without worrying about paying the prevailing defendant's legal fees.  But those that can't afford to pay an attorney $200 or more an hour, i.e. those that rely on contingency fee agreements to be able to be represented, i.e. the vast majority of us, will be virtually shut out of the courthouse, since what plaintiff's attorney is going to risk bankruptcy every time he files a case. 

It would only take losing once to force most plaintiff's attorneys into bankruptcy.  But if the plaintiff wins, does the losing defendant have to pay the plaintiff's fees?  No, they only have to pay for the damage they already caused, to bring the plaintiff back to even. 

Republican Gary Chism, whose bio reads like a who's who of insurance affiliations, is the bill's sponsor.  As one fellow blogger put it - passage of this bill will make Mississippi the most dangerous place to live in the United States. 

The language of the bill is here --->  http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2012/html/HB/0500-0599/HB0562IN.htm

Republican Gary Chism's profile is here ---->  http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/members/house/chism.xml
Be sure to contact him and, (more importantly) your own representatives, and voice your strong dissent to this blatent attempt to hurt individuals and thereby fill the coffers of insurance companies and big business.

Finally, Philip Thomas provides an excellent analysis of this bill here ---->  http://www.mslitigationreview.com/2012/02/articles/politics-in-mississippi/republican-legislator-proposes-loser-pays-statute-for-people-and-their-lawyers/

Ohio Supreme Court upholds tort reform provision

On February 15, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court turned away a challenge to a tort reform measure requiring the bifurcation of trials to separate any decision to award punitive damages from the decision to award compensatory damages. The Ohio legislature enacted the provision in 2005. It requires that the jury first decide the issue of liability and, if the defendant is found liable, the amount of compensatory damages required to compensate the plaintiff for his or her injuries. And then, in the cases where the jury is allowed to consider punitive damages, the jury then deliberates further regarding any award of punitive damages (i.e. Damages intended to punish a defendant for willful or grossly negligent conduct).

Personally, I think this tort reform measure is pretty dumb for the proponents of tort reform measures to support. When the jury returns a compensatory damage award and then the judge sends them back out to deliberate about awarding additional damages, its like the judge is telling the jury that they did not award enough the first time so they need to go award more. All good for the plaintiff and potentially costly for the defendant. And I have yet to hear what potential benefit this type of tort reform provides to the defendant.

This tort reform measure is also hardly needed. Very few cases make it to trial with punitive damages still at issue. Few cases merit even an allegation of punitive damages and those that do must also survive judicial scrutiny at both the summary judgment stage and at the punitive damage jury instruction stage. So bifurcation of trial is both contrary to the usual goal of tort reformists and also rarely comes into play.

For these reasons, the news from Ohio is not that bad for those who value justice.

What this blog is about

Tort reform ... or tort deform as I like to call it ... is apparently a never ending battle across the United States.  I first became aware of the tort reform battle early on in my legal career, when the U.S. Chamber of Congress poured millions of dollars into Mississippi in an effort to get massive tort reform laws passed to separate citizens of Mississippi with their Constitutional right to obtain due process in courthouses across the state.

Proponents of tort reform claim such so called "protections" such as caps on damages and limits on where and when lawsuits can be filed were needed to reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits.  While the reduction of the filing of frivolous lawsuits is an admirable goal, this was merely a smoke screen used to get the public's support behind laws that do nothing but hurt the members of that public.  Damage caps do not prevent the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.  Damage caps by their very definition only affect the lawsuits that require large damage awards to properly compensate a plaintiff for grievous or catastrophic injuries.  Damage caps hurt those actually injured, but does not stop or even discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits.  The only parties that damage caps and other tort reform measures protect are the ones that deserve the least protection, those entities that are negligently and/or willfully injuring others, often times for purely selfish motives such as increased profits.

The public needs to know about the dangers of tort reform and the propaganda spewed by the peddlers of these dangerous and anti consumer laws.  So that is why I started this blog ... to hopefully educate the public about the dangers of tort reform and identify those politicians who are stabbing their own constituents in the back by supporting such terrible laws.

So come back often (and tell your friends) and educate yourself about the evils of tort reform because legislative attempts at tort deform will be coming your way before you know it, if its not already happening in your state.