Tort Reform - good for us or bad for us?

I'd love to get some feedback from people about Tort reform. My position, as a trial attorney, is that it sacrifices individual rights for the benefit of corporations, insurance companies and big medicine. It allows these entities to committ acts of negligence against us and shields them from redress in the Courts.

I'll say more as the discussion progresses, but I'd like to hear from people about this...

Below is some information from an article that appeared in the newspaper today:

But what does this mean in practical terms [the limit on impact on life recovery to $750,000]? I represented an individual who lost a leg in a terrible auto accident, where the driver of the other car fled the scene (to be caught by the police later). Before the accident, my client was an avid cyclist and hiker and one of the fittest, most active people I’d ever met. Obviously, his life was changed dramatically, and as a young man, he could expect to live at least another 30 or 40 years. Under the new Civil Justice Act, he could have received no more than $750,000 for this impact on his life. Would you consider less than $20,000 a year a fair exchange for one of your legs?
Of course, a jury would likely award more than $750,000 in such a case, because the law requires the jury be “in the dark” about the cap. Though all Tennessee citizens are entitled to know what laws the legislature has passed, the large companies that are often part of such lawsuits do know that rewards are capped, and it is their hope that the average citizen does not. Furthermore, jurors are not entitled to be instructed about this new law by the judge, and the cap isn’t applied until after the jury has rendered its verdict—the jury renders its verdict, and the award is quietly reduced when they are gone. In other words, the jury awards what they believe to be appropriate compensation, but the Civil Justice Act puts politicians in the jury box, undoing what the jury has decided.
I am particularly concerned about another proposal drafted by the insurance industry that is likely to be introduced next year. The proposal would apply to automobile accidents and would limit the amount someone who did not have auto insurance could receive for non-economic damages to $25,000. My client from the earlier example, for instance, would have only received $25,000 for the loss of his leg if he had allowed his insurance to lapse—even for a day. Current laws require that we all have auto insurance to pay for injuries caused by our own negligence or wrongful conduct, and I think this is an absolutely necessary law. I counsel too many people who have been hit and injured by drivers who have no insurance whatsoever. But this proposal is not about punishing those people who cause injuries, but about punishing those who are the victims of injury.

See Article: Tort Reform - Overreaching legislation?

If you or someone you know has been injured due to the negligence of someone else, at work, at a store on the street or in your car, call the The Vogel Law Firm today 865-357-1949 - we're here to help.