Arguments Against Tort Reform

Tort reform is a very controversial issue; it is difficult to understand as the opinions are tossed around opposing sides. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms serves to benefit many of the major companies including insurance companies and doctor’s offices and/or hospital. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform serves to harm the big companies as defense form extremely large punitive damage awards. The current is that there is a growing concern among some that there are overconsumptions in law suits and uncontrolled monetary awards affecting the American judicial system. To have a more educated opinion on “tort reform” one needs to analyze the subject in both positive and negative point of view.
The movements for tort reform
There is a surplus in litigation congesting the court systems in which people along with ATRA wish to reduce. “According to a 2003 ATRA survey, 85 percent of Americans believe too many frivolous lawsuits clog our courts; therefore, ATRA successfully translates the frustrations into action and reforms.” (A Track Record of Success| ATRA) Also, the protestors against tort reform argue that the money available to victims is drastically being reduces, for many disagree with the caps on awards for damages. However, this may not apply to everyone because every case is unique and because lawsuits vary the amount of information that the plaintiff is able to supply. Lawsuits vary case by case and if there is not physical harm or injury the amount of money may be reduced because courts cannot correctly compensated when there is a lack of evidences or information. According to ATRA, “Award must be specific to each defendant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount made against him or her.” (Punitive Damages Reform: H. 3775 (2011) |ATRA) On the other hand, people argue that “the lack of money is the result of malpractice and insurance lawsuits”. Causing high damage awards in malpractice is the result of an increase in costs for everyone. According to ATRA,” Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $350,000 per provider, with an overall aggregate limit of $1.05
I disagree with having a cap on damages mostly because the noneconomic cases are the most common and the hardest to determine because every situation is different. Also, I think that everyone should be able to go to trial. I understand that some are unnecessary and that there some greedy people that lie to about a claims to get money but there are some that are honest and cannot go to trial because of lack of evidence or