During his 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Gov. Scott Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs during his first term in office. Given the number of days in a four year term, Walker will need to create just over 100 jobs per day to meet his goal.
Thus far, Scott Walker has created zero jobs, but he does have a great idea on how to create jobs: tort reform!
Under the proposal put forth by Gov. Walker, plaintiffs would have to meet a higher threshold to receive punitive damages. While the current standard requires plaintiffs show the defendant showed intentional disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have to show that the defendant either meant to harm the plaintiff or knew that his or her action was almost certain to cause harm. Additionally, the bill proposed by Walker would put caps on liability, which means businesses would enjoy far more protection even if they engage in intentional disregard for others.
Yep, Wisconsin’s clearly open for business, and if Walker’s proposal is enacted into law, I’m thinking about opening up either a lead paint factory or a pointy toy-making shop, so that I can make a few bucks without having to worry about liability.
Shouldn’t conservatives support the right to have damages determined by a jury and not the legislature. After all, its right in the Constistution:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Tort reform may sound nice but its just another term for socializing risk while privatizing gains.
Pretty much with this, personally the one thing that gets me about tort reform. If anyone justifies these actions, I believe they’re not educated enough to know what he exactly doing.
I know however some mindless conservatives will justify this as a good thing. While I can understand a portion of the bill, there are a lot of things wrong with it. Particularly this:
This will protect drunk drivers who injure others, leave open nursing home protections and daily child care services (Which get away with a lot as it is because people don’t expect abuse to the elderly, but this will just make it worse.) “frivolous” lawsuits (these actually rarely happen, but they often do get the most coverage sadly to say in the media) and the federal standard regarding expert witnesses which will raise unnecessary expenses to all parties in the court system, plaintiffs’ lawyers, defense lawyers, district attorneys, etc.
I also believe it’s fair that the retailers generally would not be liable for manufacturers’ defects in the products they sell, since a lot of them are actually unaware and it’s not fair to shoot the messager when the manufacturer did it. However making laws to make it hard to get at the manufacturer makes me frown.
As you stated, it’s just another term for socializing risk while privatizing gains.
I agree about the punitives as I posted on Boots and Saber punitive damages are rarely awarded but most commonly in drunk driving cases.
But honestly, I’m more troubled by the other reforms. Creating a presumption that alcohol or drugs caused the injury when an individual is impaired and injured by a product. I agree that comparative negligence should be a valid affirmative defense but requiring the plaintiff to overcome the presumption of causation is absurd. It so hypocritical to complain about causation in lead paint cases and at the same time impose a presumption of causation where alcohol was involved.
Finally, the caps. I believe that the free market should determine risk as well as reward from a venture. If you don’t like caps on rewards you shouldn’t want the government to cap the risk.
That was a huge one that bothers me too, especially since Wisconsin is one of the worst drinking states so that means a lot of people will get disregarded because of the said habitual drinking they might have. (Especially since alcohol stays in your system too as well, I forgot how long but it can be used against you.)
I’m for the most part against it overall, the only good thing I saw in it was the retailers portion of it.
Businesses don’t need protection from consumers and their own workers. They need demand from consumers.
I’m against it for the most part overall*
Super – thanks for the explanation here (& at B&S). I understand it better, but still…
What is the purpose of the punitive damages?
I should wait for an answer, but I’ll take a guess. Generally it’s to serve as a deterrent, right? If that’s the case, while that may well apply in product liability and that sort of thing, I have to say it’s laughable that it has an ounce of deterrent effect on drunk drivers.
I do have to admit, I’m just not following you on:
Is that line of thinking along the same lines as things like the affirmative defense of “it would’ve happened even if he were sober?” We had one of those that was successful in the Valley a few years ago for a drunk driver who hit two pedestrians walking on the side of the road.
But I guess I’m just not getting the difficulty. If a person is drunk or high & uses a product that causes harm someone, go after the drunk, not the manufacturer.
Locke, there are two recognized purposes for punitive damages. One as you correctly observe is as a deterrent. The second is to punish the wrongdoer. I agree that punitive damages are not going to serve as a deterrent for drunk drivers, but I would suggest that it is an action that deserves punishment.
“If a person is drunk or high & uses a product that causes harm someone, go after the drunk, not the manufacturer.”
The proposal, as I understand it, is broader than that. For example, If I’m mowing my lawn after a few beers and my lawn mower blows up, the proposed law would require the fact finder to presumption that my drinking caused the lawn mower to blow up.
Governor Walker’s proposal regarding punitive damages will not create one job and is pro-drunk driver. Under the proposed standard, a jury will not be allowed to even consider awarding punitive damages against a multiple offense drunk driver – four, five, even ten time offense drunk driver, for that matter. This is bad public policy.
SUPER ID… bravo to you!
I knew that eventually we would agree on something.
I don’t like this “open for business” mantra. Tort reform encourages industries seeking to avoid lawsuits and seeking to mitigate risk. It does not help those for whom risk is very small. It helps those with a known large risk.
Is that the kind of business we want in Wisconsin?
To quote Bruce Cockburn: “Open for business like a cheap bordello…”