Tort Reform Means Sewing Up ‘Deep Pockets’ : Liability suits: Consumers pay more and seldom benefit.

Warning! Do not use these electric pruning shears to trim your mustache! Outdoor gardening tools are not recommended for cosmetic purposes.

OK, I made that one up. But all of us have seen similarly absurd warnings on products we buy. It’s a result of civil litigation, otherwise known as “torts,” gone mad. The number of tort cases filed has quadrupled in the last 30 years, escalating five times as fast as criminal cases.

Personal-injury lawyers like to present themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The problem with that image is that these Robin Hoods take from nonprofits like the Scouts and the Little League and cities and towns. They even hold up their own clients. It’s estimated that less than half of all settlements ever reach the injured party. The rest ends up in the lawyers’ pockets--in excess of $10 billion--or goes to expenses, including lobbying their friends in Congress.

In the end, the money is taken from all of us because makers of products with high litigation risks factor the expected costs into their prices. As a result, $3,000 of an $18,000 pacemaker is attributable to what might be called the “tort tax,” as well as $500 of the cost of a new car, $100 of a $200 football helmet and $20 of the price of an aluminum ladder.

According to the American Tort Reform Assn., the cost of lawsuits passed on to the consumer is nearly $1,200 a year for every person in America today.

There is another price, measured in things we can’t buy. In some parts of the country, pregnant women can’t find an obstetrician any more; many doctors have abandoned this speciality because of the cost of liability insurance.

The bill before the Senate would address all of this lunacy. It would end “deep pockets,” known in legal jargon as “joint and several liability,” which allows a claimant to demand full payment from any party in the suit no matter how small its role. This legislation also would restore a much-needed sense of personal responsibility by reducing damage awards in cases where injuries are due to the plaintiff’s misuse of a product, for example, when safety devices are intentionally disabled. Or, for that matter, when hedge clippers are used as a mustache trimmer.