An Embarrassment, Not an Argument for Tort Reform


District of Columbia Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson’s attempt to sue the pants off of his local dry cleaners has been a rallying cry for those who champion tort reform. Pearson sued the dry cleaners for $54 million for misplacing his pants and failing to honor a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign at the business. Last week, Pearson’s suit was dismissed.

It’s frivolous lawsuits like this that give ammunition to those who want tort reform. Unfortunately, while tort reform sounds like a great idea on paper, the ramifications of tort reform would hurt seriously injured consumers and reward businesses and corporations that engage in negligent or reckless behavior.

The American Association of Justice has called for a disciplinary investigation of Pearson, and AAJ President Lewis Eidson recently stated, "This case is clearly atypical and we cannot allow those who oppose us on fundamental issues of access to the civil justice system to turn this case into an indictment of that system. Our mission continues to be to ensure Americans have a level playing field in our courtrooms–even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations."

Restricting products liability lawsuits has been a long-time priority for businesses, which argue that a litigation explosion has occurred in which out-of-control juries are awarding excessive punitive damages. They argue that products liability lawsuits lead to skyrocketing litigation costs and liability insurance rates, lost jobs, rising consumer prices, and the closing of organizations such as hospitals, day care centers, ski resorts, and public swimming pools that can’t afford such costs. Advocates of tort reform complain about lengthy delays in getting cases to trial, high attorneys’ fees, overly generous damage awards, and the possibility that the fear of large damage awards deters businesses from product innovations. They assert that because businesses are targeted by litigation-happy lawyers as rich deep pockets, they are faced with frivolous cases that they are forced to settle rather than risk huge jury awards.

While tort reform is packaged by its advocates to sound like a progressive philosophy that benefits everyone, in reality, its actual effect of limiting consumer lawsuits would make manufacturers less responsive to complaints about defective goods and deprive many individuals who have been injured by a defective product of an effective remedy. Limiting punitive damages would give manufacturers less exposure for any defects in their products and make it more likely that defective products would remain on the market. Setting arbitrary limits on damages as a general tort reform goal could have the effect of rendering damages inadequate in situations involving brain damage, paralysis, burn injuries, or chronic medical problems.

Contrary to businesses’ assertions, punitive damage awards in products liability cases are rare, and those that are made result in positive improvements in the product.

Public Citizen cites academic studies showing that there were only 379 punitive damage awards in state and federal products liability lawsuits between 1965 and 1994-an average of 13 per year. Many of these awards were reduced or overturned on appeal. One study showed that in nearly 80% of those cases the manufacturer took some subsequent safety measure in the wake of punitive damages.

In its January 2007 Congress Watch, Public Citizen reported that the number of medical malpractice payments declined 15.4 percent between 1991 and 2005, that payments for million-dollar verdicts were less than three percent of all payments in 2005, and that, adjusted for inflation, the average annual payment for verdicts declined eight percent between 1991 and 2005.

It might seem fashionable and indeed often appropriate to bash trial lawyers and to put them one step below carjackers and mass murderers. However, without trial lawyers and contingent fee arrangements, most victims of defective products would have little or no access to courts. Furthermore, there are rules that provide sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. By portraying trial lawyers as the poster children of tort reform, its advocates deliberately shift the focus away from the victims of defective products. The real victims are drivers of Sport Utility Vehicles that roll over; children who suffer severe burns because of pajamas that are not fire retardant; and homeowners who are injured in a propane gas explosion because the supplier failed properly to odorize the gas. The current products liability system isn’t perfect, but it works fairly well in punishing and preventing corporate neglect and misconduct and in compensating injured consumers.

Judge Pearson’s recent multimillion dollar suit for his missing pants is an embarrassment. It also hurts those severely injured consumers who need to rely on products liability to recover damages for legitimate claims.

LARRY ATKINS is a lawyer who teaches Journalism at Temple University and Arcadia University. His email address is larryLTatkins@aol.com


November 25, 2015
Jeff Taylor
Bob Dylan and Christian Zionism
Dana E. Abizaid
Provoking Russia
Oliver Tickell
Syria’s Cauldron of Fire: a Downed Russian Jet and the Battle of Two Pipelines
Patrick Cockburn
Trigger Happy: Will Turkey’s Downing of Russian Jet Backfire on NATO?
Robert Fisk
The Soothsayers of Eternal War
Russell Mokhiber
The Coming Boycott of Nike
Ted Rall
Like Father Like Son: George W. Bush Was Bad, His Father May Have Been Worse
Matt Peppe
Bad Policy, Bad Ethics: U.S. Military Bases Abroad
Martha Rosenberg
Pfizer Too Big (and Slippery) to Fail
Yorgos Mitralias
Bernie Sanders, Mr. Voutsis and the Truth Commission on Greek Public Debt
Jorge Vilches
Too Big for Fed: Have Central Banks Lost Control?
Sam Husseini
Why Trump is Wrong About Waterboarding — It’s Probably Not What You Think
Binoy Kampmark
The Perils of Certainty: Obama and the Assad Regime
Roger Annis
State of Emergency in Crimea
Soud Sharabani
ISIS in Lebanon: An Interview with Andre Vltchek
Thomas Knapp
NATO: This Deal is a Turkey
November 24, 2015
Dave Lindorff
An Invisible US Hand Leading to War? Turkey’s Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness
Mike Whitney
Turkey Downs Russian Fighter to Draw NATO and US Deeper into Syrian Quagmire
Walter Clemens
Who Created This Monster?
Patrick Graham
Bombing ISIS Will Not Work
Lida Maxwell
Who Gets to Demand Safety?
Eric Draitser
Refugees as Weapons in a Propaganda War
David Rosen
Trump’s Enemies List: a Trial Balloon for More Repression?
Eric Mann
Playing Politics While the Planet Sizzles
Chris Gilbert
“Why Socialism?” Revisited: Reflections Inspired by Einstein’s Article
Charles Davis
NSA Spies on Venezuela’s Oil Company
Michael Barker
Democracy vs. Political Policing
Barry Lando
Shocked by Trump? Churchill Wanted to “Collar Them All”
Cal Winslow
When Workers Fight: the National Union of Healthcare Workers Wins Battle with Kaiser
Norman Pollack
Where Does It End?: Left Political Correctness
David Macaray
Companies Continue to Profit by Playing Dumb
Binoy Kampmark
Animals in Conflict: Diesel, Dobrynya and Sentimental Security
Dave Welsh
Defiant Haiti: “We Won’t Let You Steal These Elections!”
November 23, 2015
Vijay Prashad
The Doctrine of 9/11 Anti-Immigration
John Wight
After Paris: Hypocrisy and Mendacity Writ Large
Joseph G. Ramsey
No Excuses, No Exceptions: the Moral Imperative to Offer Refuge
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS Thrives on the Disunity of Its Enemies
Andrew Moss
The Message of Montgomery: 60 Years Later
Jim Green
James Hansen’s Nuclear Fantasies
Robert Koehler
The Absence of History in the Aftermath of Paris
Dave Lindorff
The US Media and Propaganda
Dave Randle
France and Martial Law
Gilbert Mercier
If We Are at War, Let’s Bring Back the Draft!
Alexey Malashenko
Putin’s Syrian Gambit
Binoy Kampmark
Closing the Door: US Politics and the Refugee Debate