Tort Reform Essay Example for Free

civil unlawful Reform Essay civil wrong Reform As with near debates fought in the popular press, there is just about truth on both sides. At the center of this controversy is the way the legal clay handles disputes or torts. A tort by definition is not just actions resulting in physical injury. Slander, fraud, and trespass are also torts. However, most of the argument on tort purify, concerns cases involving physical injury, medical malpractice and product liability. America is the most sue happy society in the world. We take our private problems to court more readily than the multitude of any other country.I do not agree with the article, Corp Reform-Not Tort Reform. Indeed Tort Reform is essential. The impact of tort films is gargantuan, in retrospect to other types of law adapts. Many of these cost are thoughtless by corporations. On the front end, the corporation may pay the damages awarded but, on the back end, the posting is absorbed by stockholders, taxpayers a nd consumers. These individuals pay in the form of reduced share prices, increased administrative costs and higher prices for goods and services.The second reason why we need tort reform is because a tort claim is the type of lawsuit most likely to give rise to frivolous accusations. We need to see reform by obtaining more structure in punitive damages. Punitive damages should be reserved for those who genuinely deserve to be punished. A plaintiff should be required to show clear and convincing evidence, that vituperate was suffered because actual malice rather than by mere simple evidence. Punitive damages should be only when awarded once it is wrong punish a corporation twice for the same tort.There must be some incentive for true injured parties with legitimate claims to pursue them in court. The problem with our legal system is that there is no incentive not to bring a claim, even as frivolous as can be. It prevents even victorious party from being rewarded since legal fees c an eat up a huge percentage of any amounts won in court. The American way can also reject a plaintiff with a legitimate grievance from filing a lawsuit. This is because funds recovered by the victim will be consumed by the costs of his attorneys fees.When the expected legal costs are great than the amount of the claim, the plaintiff may decide not to sue. Second, it means that someone who has done nothing wrong often ends up paying for someone elses choice to use the court system to litigate a grievance. From the moment a case is filed, the defendant begins to calculating the relative cost of going to court versus settlement, in the scenario even a innocent defendant often decide to settle to avoid legal fees and disobedient publicity. Adapting a loser pays rule would discourage frivolous lawsuits and promote the early settlement of meritorious ones.In conclusion, I am not surprised by the McDonald coffee case. It simply proves my point. State officials should enact its let refo rms to fill in any gaps left by the federal efforts at tort reform and total reasonable limitations on noneconomic as well as punitive damages and amendment on rules of joint and some(prenominal) liabilities. We need to join the rest of the western world in recognizing the disadvantages of the American way of filing suit and the problems it has caused the economy, the tort system, and the delivery of civil justice.