25 novembre 2005 19:10
The common good vs. what's good for special interests..BI.. he needs informed
Should on our judicial system. The lawsuits for silicone breast implants seem to prove this point. The cause and effect relationship ...
A Journal Sentinel article on Nov. 9 mentioned three legislative bills ("Malpractice caps bill goes before Doyle"). The first bill would put a cap on medical malpractice suits, the second would make it tougher to sue paint manufacturers for lead poisoning and the third would make it tougher to sue manufacturers, distributors or retailers.
On both sides of these bills, there is a great deal of lobbying going on. However, what is really good for the public as opposed to the special interests? The answer is currently lost in the partisan wars.
The public needs a tort system that is fair, that punishes the negligent and incompetent and that provides for the injured. It should never put financial burden on those who are not responsible just to get the injured party some compensation.
Our current system does some things well and some things not so well. One of the strengths of the system is that the little guy can challenge the most powerful corporations.
One weakness is that companies can be sued for problems for which they bear little or no responsibility. Many companies choose to settle because the cost of a trial would exceed the cost of a settlement.
Another weakness is that at times, offending parties are protected because of legislation that gives special status to certain special interests.
The assumption from one part of the political spectrum is that corporations are rich and can afford to take care of the injured. This thinking could lead to business failure and lost jobs.
The other side thinks that companies need protection from an out-of-control legal system. This thinking could lead to those who cause injury getting off the hook.
Another problem is the fact that science seems not to have the impact it should on our judicial system. The lawsuits for silicone breast implants seem to prove this point.
>>
The cause and effect relationship for which the implant companies were sued was never established. Now implants containing silicone are back on the market. However, the suits have cost corporations millions. <<>>
It is sad that people suffer disease and injury, but if there is no cause and effect established, then suing over the issue hurts us all. <<Some guidelines should be in place when we consider legislation affecting legal liability. First, people should be entitled to redress their wrong in a court of law and to be fully compensated for their loss. Second, financial liability should exist only to the extent of any negligence.
In order to do this, evidence needs to be correctly analyzed and percentages of fault estimated. If a manufacturer is accountable for 10% of the problem, it should not be required to pay 100% of the solution just because it is perceived to have deep pockets.
Finally, some system needs to be established to eliminate nuisance lawsuits. In Europe, the legal team must reimburse the other side if it is found to have brought an unjustified legal action.
If legislation on our tort system followed those principals, then we would have a much better system. In light of those principals, it seems that caps on awards or protecting certain groups is fundamentally unfair. On the other hand, suing paint companies over the lead that they took out of their product more than 25 years ago seems weird. It seems that homeowners, landlords and contractors have the lion's share of responsibility on that issue.
However, instead of protecting paint manufacturers, a bill that would limit financial liability to the level of fault would make much more sense. Instead of putting caps or protection for certain groups, we should target nuisance lawsuits. The system should be a major deterrent to negligence but not lead to unnecessary costs for society.
Also, limiting compensation for the lawyers would mean more for the injured.
But thinking about ideal solutions, when the people we pay to represent us care more about getting campaign contributions than what would be a fair, is a cause of headaches. Could we sue over that?
Joseph Geck of Waukesha is a self-employed international consultant. His e-mail address is geckj@execpc.com
gigi/Karen evidently, Joesph is a geek on the dangers of; breast implants, and the facts an evidence concerning all breast implants that were never approved by the FDA and Dow hid all there incriminating evidence done in their lab on rats, beagles who all died from the toxic chemicals in these bags of carcinogenic Faulty medical devices. Dow, was aware of from the beginning and paid to have incriminating material against them used in trials locked away forever! I wonder if, he's been a consultant for, Dow ever$?
