Debate Over Tort Reform

* Re Column Right by Bob Dole, April 27:

I agree with Sen. Dole’s assessment of tort reform. I have been in a field that for the past 20 years put me in a position to see, and from time to time be (if not the fodder for), a part of the legal system’s cannon.

I really don’t think that average Americans have any idea of how much money is really directed toward potential litigation expenses (the hidden costs) of each and every item we purchase. Each time I hear of a mega-million-dollar lawsuit being awarded to some hapless person for injuries obviously self-inflicted for not following directions or displaying some common sense, I discover that (a) I feel sorry that the poor person did get hurt, (b) feel sorry for the company he sued and (c) marvel at the masterful art of jury deception that allowed this massive award to begin with.

Don’t get me wrong. There are too many times where a person or a product is truly at fault, even if used in its intended way. If this is the case, the injured party should be compensated.

Bottom line of it all is these wonderful punitive damage awards, that initially were designed to punish the wrongdoer, are actually paid by, you guessed it, us, the public!

Finally, perhaps some real teeth should be put in laws that would make it harder to file frivolous lawsuits. Many insurance companies weigh frivolous lawsuits in this fashion: Which makes more sense, offering $20,000 for settlement out of court, or pay $40,000 in legal fees to defend it, and still run the risk of losing the case? If the filing party of this type of suit were to lose, then perhaps his attorney should be forced to pay “punitive” damages.

BILL FUNK

Van Nuys

* I am a consumer attorney. Yes, Sen. Dole, I am a champion of the consumer. No, Mr. Dole, I don’t make $300,000 an hour, and I don’t file frivolous lawsuits. I help people who are injured by the careless acts of others, sometimes at no charge. I work alone against insurance companies that assign six people to the smallest case and spend disproportionate amounts to make it as difficult as possible for the injured consumer to recover. These same companies then blame the injured victims and their attorneys for the unconscionable rates they charge consumers.

I agree our legal system can be improved, but we should examine all the facts and invite reasoned debate before proposing wholesale changes to the laws that protect consumers. Those who cite atypical anecdotes to push for systemic change do no service to Americans who want a fair system of justice for consumers and big business alike.

BRAD KUENNING

Pasadena

* Column Left (April 27) by Alexander Cockburn is misleading. The $250,000 cap is for non-economic damages, also known as “pain and suffering,” only. All other damages are recoverable. Those economic damages are without limitation, include and are not limited to medical expenses past, present and future, property damages, and lost earnings and lost earning capacity. In cases of substantial injuries, those losses are what add up to millions of dollars. Recovery by a spouse for “loss of consortium” may also be recovered, up to an additional $250,000.

Cockburn makes it appear there is a cap on the total that can be recovered. Not so. Multimillion-dollar judgments will be available to injured persons if the modest tort reform proposal now in Congress is enacted. What may be avoided in the future is a “runaway jury” awarding millions of dollars to someone who spills hot coffee in her own lap.

THOMAS KEISER

Arcadia