It is a system where a victim of a tort gets pennies on the dollar from an insurance company to settle when compared to what the victim would get if he had a lawyer (and paid a 33% commission).

It is a system where tortfeasors want to litigate until the cows come home in fear that a settlement will show they are an easy mark and encourage further litigation.

Tort systems seem to work better in other developed countries (at least the only country I hear complaints about is the US). Why is that? I don’t know.

I am aware that you do not advocate the end of torts.

But bear with me here. What would happen if there were no longer any tort causes of action? If the system is counterproductive, isn’t the first step to stop digging the hole?

I agree with your assessment of the root problem with litigation costs. Lawyers. I would also put part of the blame on the way law firms are organized, i.e., in a pyramid structure.

Because a guy that led police on a high speed chase was beaten by the police would change because of “universal health care” how?

Where did “health care” enter into this at all?

Here’s a different suggestion: how about holding people accountable for their actions?

In this case, the City of Birmingham was dismissed from the lawsuit but yet has to pay for the actions of the officers that were fired and then reinstated in beating the handcuffed victim. Instead of the officers paying for the damages, the City (read: taxpayers) have to foot the bill.

If an employee cost my business $460K, do you think I’d keep him around? Would any business? Yet taxpayers are stuck with the bill because the government protects their own instead of getting rid of the riff raff.

A second suggestion would be to limit the bill padding of lawyers themselves. If electricians, plumbers, mechanics, etc billed customers the way lawyers do, they not only would be ridiculed, but would likely be sued by the people using the same billing principles.

Right now there is no reason for lawyers, clerks, court reporters, magistrates and judges to be efficient in their time management. Part of the high costs of litigation is laid at the feet of the legal profession who seek to increase billable hours rather than seek justice and or truth.

“Universal health care” is not going to solve “billable hours” much less tort reform.

Unfortunately, the only way for the torts system to work seems to be that plaintiffs have to pay high price lawyers and engage in very expensive discovery, leading to a very expensive trial.

I would say the best way to get the tort system under control is to have universal health care coverage. Once that was in place, the possible damages would plummet.

I am not saying we should not have a system that compensates people for damage caused by the negligent or wilful acts of others. I am saying that the system should be more efficient.

If there’s no justice, and a fair means of compensation doesn’t currently exist, why the heck should we have a torts system at all?

Real question. If it’s not accomplishing its goals, and its effects are negative, why not abolish torts? Yeah, sure, its goals won’t be achieved in this scenario, but they aren’t being achieved anyway. What do we have to lose?

But, there is no justice. Litigators will litigate. The cost of litigation is ridiculous. There should be a fair means for getting justice for torts causing small damages without having to pay a lawyer zillions of dollars.

Allowing government entities to benefit from a “loser pays” rule, at least when they are the plaintiff, would make this problem a hundred times worse. So I’m very glad of this “one way rule” at least when it’s applied against government plaintiffs.

Why is this outrageous?

It’s outrageous for several reasons. First, the reason the fees are so high is presumably because the lawsuit was filed 2009, and it’s only *settling* now. There’s a freaking videotape of the incident in question. Justice should not work this slowly, and lawsuits should not cost 460 times their value to defend.

Second, if the guy is getting $1K and his lawyers are getting $459K, that means there is about a 46000% penalty for attempting to defend the lawsuit – and that doesn’t include their OWN legal expenses. You can say they should have settled earlier or not at all, and that may be true… but who knows whether the judge made some unexpectedly unfavorable ruling or something.

Third, if the guy is getting $1K and the lawyers are getting $459K, it calls into question whether those lawyers are working in the best interests of their client. The client is getting less than 0.22% of what the city is paying. I do not see how attorneys representing both sides could think this was in the best interests of their respective clients. If there was a 50% chance that the guy would win a $50000 settlement, for example, I can’t see why either side would want to settle for $1000 plus $459,000 in fees. It doesn’t make sense for the guy, who would stand to make a lot more, and it doesn’t make sense for the city, who would stand to pay not much more. (Unless both sides thought it would drag out for another 5 years, in which case my first point goes double.) The only people it makes sense for are the plaintiff’s attorneys, who might be faced with getting no fees at all if they lose.

It might make sense if the plaintiff thought they were going to lose and the defendant thought THEY were going to lose, but then I’d question the competence of their respective attorneys.