Mark Robinson and Kevin
Calcagnie's "Why
We Need Trial Lawyers" (op-ed, Feb. 24) can generously be described
as disingenuous, at best.
No one, I believe,
suggests that product liability litigation be done away with. What most
of us objected to, and the authors know it, are the outrageous awards
which serve to cripple businesses, raise insurance rates to unaffordable
levels and ultimately raise prices to consumers. It should be obvious
that in health care alone, capping awards and excessive attorney fees
would significantly reduce the cost of medical care.
Steven Hess
Rochester, N.Y.
Plaintiffs lawyers Mark
Robinson and Kevin Calcagnie argue that "Product liability lawsuits have
played a crucial role in ensuring public safety." Though some liability
law is useful, lay juries do a poor job of distinguishing between real
product defects and those supported by junk science. So the facts tell a
different tale than what the authors try to spin. Yale Law Professor
George Priest has demonstrated that the expansion of products liability
law does not correspond to decreases in accident rates. And Emory
University Economics Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd have
shown empirically that the very tort reforms Messrs. Robinson and
Calcagnie decry lead to a decline in accidental deaths in those states
that adopt them.
James R. Copland
The Manhattan Institute
New York
Messrs. Robinson and
Calcagnie clearly don't understand why tort reform is needed and why
taxpayers like me are demanding it. Day after day, I read about
companies settling lawsuits because it's cheaper than going to court.
The authors quote
statistics from manufacturing CEOs about perceived improvements as a
result of lawsuits, but what they don't say is how many jobs were lost,
or health benefits reduced, or companies put out of business, as a
result of threatened or settled lawsuits. How about the increased
product costs to pay for lawsuits and increased insurance premiums? What
does this cost, and are consumers willing to pay? Is the improvement
made by the manufacturer really going to improve health and safety, or
is it done to avoid future litigation with no apparent benefit?
California schools are
facing one of the worst financial crises in their history, yet schools
routinely settle large-dollar lawsuits that are without merit because
the legal fees are onerous, and defense is too time- and
resource-consuming, or they settle out of fear of a potentially high
jury award. Imagine how many lawsuits wouldn't see the light of day if
we had true tort reform, with loser pays consequences.
Ed Morrissey
Dublin, Calif.
To attempt to set up
restrictions on obtaining just compensation other than that to be found
in the courts through the law, is the greatest assault upon individual
freedom that we have ever faced. We must resist such attempts in order
to protect our freedom.
It is strange beyond
irony that those who would reject any government regulation of the
free-market system are the first to assault the closest approximation of
a part of a democratic free market—the recourse to our system of
laws—because they are upset with the price that this system sets for
personal injury.
Lawrence G. Polzin
Greendale, Wis.
The salutary benefits of
product-liability litigation against companies that fail to use
reasonable care in the design, manufacture and testing of drugs, motor
vehicles, toys, clothing, etc., is not generally disputed. Trial lawyers
also perform valuable services in many other areas, such as commercial
litigation, personal injury litigation and property rights litigation.
Does anyone really
believe that medical malpractice litigation results in doctors being any
more conscientious in providing the best possible care for their
patients in any significant way? All it does is cause doctors to perform
excessive testing to help fend off malpractice cases, take other
unnecessary measures, such as delivering more babies via Caesarean
section, or leave their practice or state due to the excessively high
cost of malpractice insurance. The enactment of comprehensive tort
reform in Texas has shown this can make tremendous improvements in this
difficult area of practice.
Let's give credit to
trial lawyers for the good things they do, but not for their disservice
to society through their opposition to needed malpractice tort reform.
David W. Brownlee
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 