| Yeah, tort reform usually seeks to limit the punitive damages designed to make large institutions actually notice when they lose a lawsuit. Without such penalties, there's a reduced incentive for administrators to notice that, say, surgeons are frequently leaving scalpels in patients. [1] I get that people have an adverse reaction to plaintiffs striking it rich (not that they really are). But what tort reformers don't realize is that the perceived unfairness of jackpot lawsuits might actually be discouraging juries from using punitive damage amounts that would actually change corporate behavior. We might get more appropriate incentives for businesses if we said, "Ok, the plaintiff gets made whole, even for pain and suffering, maybe the lawyers get paid, but after that, punitives go to the state." The state could use the funds to educate or prevent harms similar to whatever most of the lawsuits are about, or set up a fund to compensate others harmed by the most common dangerous practices. It'd lead to damage awards that could actually change business behavior, fewer perceptions of unjust plaintiff enrichment, and a better balance sheet for the state or state programs designed to reduce the harms all at the same time. [1] http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/surgeons-leave-... |