I’m a big Rudy fan and agree with Rudy on judges. However, I have to differ on some of his tort reform ideas. Caps on non-economic damages do not discourage frivolous lawsuits as much as they harm plaintiffs that are truely injured. If a jury awards more than $250,000 for pain and suffering, the damage must have been clear and serious — the case could not have been frivolous. So, what he is talking about is capping damages on meritorious cases, not frivolous cases. These caps are just for the benefit of the insurace companies.
He also referred to Texas’ new cap and the benefits it is having on doctors. That is misleading. California has had the exact same cap and all studies show that it is not having the claimed effect — it is just saving the insurance companies alot of money on meritorious cases. (Imagine the gross negligence of a drunk doctor leaving a healthy young man in excreciating debilitating pain the rest of his life, he cannot work, cannot play, cannot make love, will never get married, never have children — $250,000 is all he can expect for his loss.)
Finally, I disagree that the judge with the pants had a frivolous case. His damage claim for millions was frivolous, but his claim for the $50 for the value of the pants was perfectly meritorious. Many jurisdictions already have cost shifting statutes where a defendant can offer the undisputed amount of the claim and recover costs if the plaintiff fails to do better than the defendant’s offer.
Finally, Rule 11 sanctions are already available for frivolous lawsuits filed for an improper purpose.
Rudy I love you, but tort reform is just disingenuous red meat for the conservatives.
