The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Carter Wrenn offers another excellent analysis showing why conservatives should reject tort reform proposals.

A jury may still hear a medical malpractice case but it will not be told about Senator Rucho’s cap on how much restitution it can award for disfigurement, loss of limb and so on. Instead, the jury will hear the evidence, reach its verdict, determine damages, award whatever it decides is fair restitution and go home.

But, then, something odd happens.

If the jury awards a victim (say, for the loss of his legs) over $250,000, Senator Rucho reaches out of the State Senate and into the jury box and changes its verdict and the judge cuts the restitution to $250,000.

Now Bob Rucho will tell you he’s for less government and less government power but his bill extends the power of State Senators and Representatives into a place (the jury box) where common sense and the North Carolina Constitution says politicians ought not to be meddling.

In the end it boils down to this: Who do we trust to decide verdicts? Juries who hear evidence or politicians like Senator Rucho who take contributions from the Medical Society?

Read the full article here: Trial Lawyers [Carter Wrenn at Talking About Politics]

More conservatives against tort reform:

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

(c) Copyright 2011 Brett A. Emison

One Comment

  1. Gravatar for Razia

    It seems crazy that the only solution that the government can consistently come up with is caps. I think this is the only solution they use because it works for well for bringing down medical malpractice insurance rates. (see )Texas is a great example. Rates for medical liability insurance have plummeted. However, severely injured patients are really limited. NOT JUST DUE TO THE CAP, but because it is extremely hard to find a plaintiff attorney willing to take a case. Unless it is a slam dunk, attorneys aren't willing to take the risk. We need a tort reform solution that limits frivilous claims, but at the same time allows patients access to damages when they are severely injured.


Comments are closed.

Of Interest