Bird’s Stands on Civil Cases

I wish that all of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird’s detractors had read The Times article (March 9), “Stands on Civil Cases Stir Praise, Criticism of Bird.” Contained in it is a lesson to the people of California: that with enough money and media access, politicians subservient to business interests can so twist an issue that the people of California can be convinced to vote against issues that are in their best interest.

The California Supreme Court, which over the years has enabled people to more easily recover damages in work and product-related cases and has “been sensitive to the workplace, and to the victims of injuries within society . . . and to develop the law . . . in a way that is sensitive to people,” is called anti-business and anti-insurance. Why is it considered so “anti” to pay damages, for example, to a worker who has been knowingly (and criminally) exposed to unhealthy working conditions?

This has become not only a case of treating the symptoms and not the disease but blaming the California Supreme Court and specifically Rose Bird for the consequences. It is not right to blame the court for businesses that will not accept responsibility and take precautions to protect their workers and consumers but also do not want to pay for damages caused by their irresponsibility.

It seems logical that once responsibility is recognized and the idea of safety over profits is accepted then the number of grievances against industry by its workers and consumers should also decrease. Less liability should mean lower insurance premiums and then the insurance industry won’t worry about having to raise its rates so much that it will be “impossible for poor people to pay for insurance coverage.”

If it appears to Loyola University Law School Prof. Gideon Kanner that the “court’s opinions reek of the notion that there is no social value in being a businessman,” maybe it’s because business is showing little or no social values and is acting in an “anti-people” fashion.

Both the court and Rose Bird have repeatedly shown themselves to be sensitive to the people’s needs. Justices like Rose Bird are not there to bend to political trends that politicians try to convince us are ours. It is political double talk to try and make Rose Bird appear that she is not following through on what “the voters” want when in actuality she is not bending to the pressure of business and business-backed politicians using the highly emotional issue of death sentence reversals as a smoke screen.

CATHERINE DOYLE

Los Angeles