The morality of tort reform

[Emery]

Soon I will have to make a moral argument in the courtroom, namely that giving my client money to compensate him for his injuries is the right thing to do. The funny thing is, I've been told to expect a more sympathetic jury in liberal, less religious counties like the one Portland is in, and a more hostile jury in smaller, more religious counties in rural Oregon. That seems counterintuitive to me, since Christianity teaches us that we are our brother's keeper, and that we should be responsible for the harm we cause others.

What are people's thoughts on the morality of financial compensation for injury? I guess this is really the tort reform debate, but I'm interested to see it framed in a moral context. I'm especially interested in those who support tort reform on moral grounds, rather than those who just have a knee-jerk reaction to the sensationalized lawsuit stories we hear in the media.

[Dr Mundo]

Soon I will have to make a moral argument in the courtroom, namely that giving my client money to compensate him for his injuries is the right thing to do. The funny thing is, I've been told to expect a more sympathetic jury in liberal, less religious counties like the one Portland is in, and a more hostile jury in smaller, more religious counties in rural Oregon. That seems counterintuitive to me, since Christianity teaches us that we are our brother's keeper, and that we should be responsible for the harm we cause others.

In speaking with many Christians they seem to have a certain mindset about them. most conservative "hardcore" Christians are much less like the Christ than the hippie liberal Christians. This is of course only my own experience with them. Even when I believed I was much more liberal with my Christianity than anyone I know (even more so than Scott ) well anyways I will leave this for the Christians to respond to and for them to give you their input on why this would be the case.

What are people's thoughts on the morality of financial compensation for injury? I guess this is really the tort reform debate, but I'm interested to see it framed in a moral context. I'm especially interested in those who support tort reform on moral grounds, rather than those who just have a knee-jerk reaction to the sensationalized lawsuit stories we hear in the media.

When dealing with these types of things I always try to put myself in the shoes of the other person, and switch roles. What expenses would I like to have pay for if I was injured? How much would I think I need to pay if I was personally responsible for someones injuries?

[mitchellmckain]

The funny thing is, I've been told to expect a more sympathetic jury in liberal, less religious counties like the one Portland is in, and a more hostile jury in smaller, more religious counties in rural Oregon. That seems counterintuitive to me, since Christianity teaches us that we are our brother's keeper, and that we should be responsible for the harm we cause others.

Christians also tend to be more conservative and are skeptical in regards to looking for solutions to problems in litigation and government. The issue with regards to tort reform is not even one about whether those harmed should be compensated but whether the government should shoulder the burden of doing so, even though they may well be in favor of reducing litigation.

If however, you view tort reform as a way of giving money to big business, it might seem that the Republicans would be all for it and thus they would be at odds with the conservative nature of most Christians. Just because the Republicans are enjoying more support from conservative and evangelical Christians at the moment does not mean that the interests of the two are identical.

What are people's thoughts on the morality of financial compensation for injury? I guess this is really the tort reform debate, but I'm interested to see it framed in a moral context. I'm especially interested in those who support tort reform on moral grounds, rather than those who just have a knee-jerk reaction to the sensationalized lawsuit stories we hear in the media.

Your question is a little vague. Do I think that everyone who is injured should be financial compensated? No. Do I think morality mandates that anyone with an injury be financial compensated for it? Absolutely not. It is a question of responsiblity, and where the responsibility for injury lies. I think it is absolutely insane for us to reward people for stupidity and that is what we will be doing with no-fault compensation. I suppose part of the question is where should the presumption of responsibility lie and I would say that this has to be with the person himself if we are to insist that people be responsible for their own lives. And thus it is only when we can prove that someone else is responsible that we should require them to pay compensation.

Yes bad things happen to people for no reason at all. But I am not sure that we can change this by means government or litigation. I think all we will end up doing is changing which people suffer and move so far from the natural order that life loses rational coherence altogether.

Perhaps the philosophical difference that lies behind this is the fundamental faith of theists that for the most part life is as it should be and it is the exception to the norm when it is not. There is a fundamental conservativism in this. Thus however much the theist may indeed feel called to help those to whom life has been unkind, he does not think that life itself needs to be reinvented.

P.S. This is based on an understanding that life is not as it should be because something is wrong with people, and thus what needs to change is not the circumstances but the people themselves. But as people do change then things like the best means of government are likely to change as well. So the conservativism we are talking about here is not absolute.

[Keep The Reason]

I strongly recommend Hot Coffee which is specifically about tort reform in the USA, as a consequence of that elderly woman who burned herself with coffee and sued MacDonald's. It is exactly about this, and they even interview someone who was strongly for tort reform, and then, when a malpractice suit ended up garnering him personally a pittance, confesses that he always thought of the requirement to pay people who sued to be frivolous. Until he was a victim of his own foolish politics.

As to the religious connection, you yourself once PM'd me that people are "better than their religion" but in this case, the reverse is true. People are not better than the fiduciary model set up by Jesus, who was abut as communistic as could be in his personal economics. I have often found the vast number of believers to be the least charitable, the most mean-spirited and unforgiving. This isn't to say that some people aren't very charitable and are so motivated by their religion, it's just to say that most are not. And in my personal experience, I find the kindest more tolerant and charitable people by far are non-believers. I admit this may be purely anecdotal.

As to my personal opinion on compensation, I agree with Mitch that it really depends on who is responsible; however, this working in theory doesn't necessarily translate into a practical reality. Doing something stupid to oneself shouldn't obligate a company to pay, but if that injury causes someone to rely on social systems, what other options are there? I am not a dispassionate individual and I don't mind that some of my input into my society (read: taxes) would be used to care for the weakest of us. On the other hand, there will be people who abuse the system. So the moral context matters. Abuse of the system should result in a punishment, but real need should not be dismissed.

[Emery]

Thanks for the ideas guys. So to narrow this down: generally my clients are those who have been rear-ended in car accidents. They generally have invisible injuries in the back which usually resolve after a few months of chiropractic. Some, however, have lingering pain, and may experience early onset of arthritis in the back.

So my job is to convince the jury that the right thing to do is for the person who ran into my client to pay for my client's medical bills, wage loss, and compensation for pain and suffering. I need to convince people that this is the right thing to do.

Some, however, are not convinced that giving money for injury and pain is the right thing to do. Some say my client should just suck it up, shit happens. Others say that money won't make a person better. What are your moral arguments for or against?

BTW, Hot Coffee is a great film, made by one of our fellow lawyers here in Oregon.

[mitchellmckain]

Thanks for the ideas guys. So to narrow this down: generally my clients are those who have been rear-ended in car accidents. They generally have invisible injuries in the back which usually resolve after a few months of chiropractic. Some, however, have lingering pain, and may experience early onset of arthritis in the back.

So my job is to convince the jury that the right thing to do is for the person who ran into my client to pay for my client's medical bills, wage loss, and compensation for pain and suffering. I need to convince people that this is the right thing to do.

Some, however, are not convinced that giving money for injury and pain is the right thing to do. Some say my client should just suck it up, shit happens. Others say that money won't make a person better. What are your moral arguments for or against?

Driving is not a right but a privelidge for which one implicitly promises to be responsible in a number of different ways. Thus if it can be determined that a driver is in fact responsible for an injury then by driving in the first place he has promised to take responsibility for such things. On the other hand, who is responsible for an accident is often difficult to determine in any absolute way and I think the best that enforcement can do is make some clear cut rules about determining responsibility. Sure it can seem unfair but those are the conventions and rule we have chosen to conduct our affairs by and thus for better or worse we must live by them. We will just have to do our best to guard against people using the system selfishly for their own benefit.

[mikedsjr]

Emery, Texas already has tort reform, so i honestly can't know what its like in Oregon.....nor do i want to know. I've had my share of accidents that were not my fault and totaled my car. I never even considered going to doctor anymore than was required. And I never have had an issue with the Insurance companies, of the other drivers, trying to help me and they honestly gave me more latitude than i gave myself in seeking help, but i declined. But maybe that's because I'm White Rich American.

The last person who hit me was a hispanic woman who didn't look like she had a lot of money. I felt so bad for her. I really tried to help her out despite being in pain for a few moments after the wreck. I was going to help her get her car to the shop, even if i had to pay, but the police showed up and took over.

The wreck that really shook me up and totaled my car, sending me spinning from an passenger side t-bone impact at about 40+ mph was pretty painful. However, I walked away heavily shaken but never with any intent to do anymore than just get the bare minimum of what i needed, which was my doctor to check me out and say i was fine. But before I left the scene, I went over to the guy who hit me and shook his hand and said "im okay and I have no hard feelings and asked if he was okay". I really meant it.

So let me ask you: Do your clients care about the person who hit them and would have been willing to help them? If not, then why the hell are you asking me about the morality of Tort Reform?

[Keep The Reason]

But maybe that's because I'm White Rich American.

You are? Really? And a Christian? I have a biblical quote for you!

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Good luck!

[mikedsjr]

KTR, please post the whole thing, including where it says, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”, because that portion is the bottomline to those who can be saved.

My point was fecitious. I have felt i was rich since the days when i was able to live on my own in an low rent apartment in the dangerous part of the city because i couldnt afford a house. I dont think of rich by the amount of money, but whether you know you have another meal coming. Its the sinful world that believes rich is by $$$$.

[Emery]

Hi Mike. Thanks for your post. I take it you're for tort reform and against monetary compensation for a person injured by another in a car accident. Is that your position? Just wanted to clarify before pitching my moral argument to you.

Thanks.

[mikedsjr]

Yes, im for Tort Reform. Im not against monetary compensation. What i am against is what Tort Reform is supposed to assist with and that is keeping monetarily compensation reasonable.

I dont think this is about morality if we dont discuss the moral intent of the injured.

[Emery]

The moral aspect comes in here: more and more often these days, we get jurors that don't think giving people money for their injuries is the right thing to do. "Life is tough, just live with it. Nobody gives me money for my bad back, so why should your client get money?"

The moral argument I make, which I hope makes sense even to the most ardent tort reformer, is that the injured person has already paid, and will continue to pay. They pay with the pain they had to go through, such as the multiple doctor visits, the inability to do activities they used to, and the prospect of early onset of degenerative changes due to the accident. Along with this are past and uncertain future medical bills and accommodations due to the injuries. Therefore the right and moral thing is for the person who caused the accident to compensate the injured person for these things, and money is the only practical compensation we can give.

Now here's where the difficulty comes in: how much is it worth, in dollars, if your back is hurt, and you can no longer lift weights like you used to, and can't play with your kids without pain? How much is it worth that you used to be pain free and happy, and now you are in constant pain? That is always an unknown. But, I leave that to the jury. My main job is to convince them that giving money to the injured party is the moral thing to do. As to how much, that's ultimately up to them.

Does that make sense? How would you respond to an argument like that if you were on my jury? You'd be surprised how many people now think giving money for pain and suffering is wrong.

Thanks man.

[Keep The Reason]

Does that make sense?

No, but I am not surprised.

How would you respond to an argument like that if you were on my jury? You'd be surprised how many people now think giving money for pain and suffering is wrong.

I think people all in all consider injuries to be faked, and so their view is that a person in a minor car accident trumps up his injuries in order to score a hefty sack-load of Benjamins. It's almost like it's considered winning the PowerBall or something. Add this to the idea that they think the lottery dough is coming from their already oil-pressed wallets, and they seem to want to snap off the Button of Compassion.

FWIW, I found a number of "Tort Reform & Demographics" articles out there-- you might want to check these out.

http://www.bepress.com/rle/vol4/iss2/art3/ (temp login needed)
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/academi ... epherd.pdf

And in this blog about John Stossel, something is mentioned that I've come across quite often in these discussions. I'll quote it:

You see, [John Stossel] was the plaintiff in a lawsuit after professional wrestler Dave Schultz slapped him twice. But he didn’t just sue the wrestler that smacked him down, but the World Wrestling Federation as well. The case reportedly settled for $400,000. Here is the video of the two slaps (with an out take above):

So what happened to change (John Stossel's) mind? Usually, I refer to tort “reformers” as people who have never been seriously injured by the negligence of another. The hypocrites suddenly see the light when they become injured.

Go to the URL if you want to see Stossel gets a double bitch slap from a Southern Oak Tree that goes by the peppy Semitic-Aryan moniker of "David Schultz".

[Emery]

Does that make sense?

No, but I am not surprised.

Thanks for the links KTR. I like the Stossel blog and video. So what part doesn't make sense? Evidently I need to work on the argument.

[Keep The Reason]

Does that make sense?

No, but I am not surprised.

Thanks for the links KTR. I like the Stossel blog and video. So what part doesn't make sense? Evidently I need to work on the argument.

I don't think you can do much about this, but it doesn't make sense that people actively work against their own best interests. This is why I campaign as a Reasonist, adopting critical thinking standards that are anathema to theistic inclinations. People buy a whole vast farm of spoiled goods based on mere assertion, and they learn how to do this from birth-- via guess which happy ideology? Of course, those theists who actually analyze their beliefs exist, and they tend to be on forums like this, so those we consider "sheeple" don't even come here.