Sensible Tort Reform

From time to time, I’ve said I’m generally opposed to tort reform. However, this basic opposition doesn't mean there are no improvements to the legal system.

This FOXNews.com Story outlines a couple of good changes to the system:

• “Under the legislation, class-action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.”

This is just sensible. There are attorneys who forum shop. While forum shopping can be good, it becomes bad in mass torts because attorneys seek potential class members in a particular state-court jurisdiction for its perceived “plaintiff-friendliness.” This ends the practice of finding a single class member for jurisdictional purposes in mass torts by removing the case to federal court. Notice that this provision does NOT end forum shopping. It only says federal courts have jurisdiction in these cases unless you can round up a large number of plaintiffs in a certain jurisdiction.

• The bill would also limit lawyers’ fees in settlements where plaintiffs get product discounts instead of financial settlements. The measure links the fees to the coupon’s redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.

Here’s another common-sense measure. Make the benefit of a class action suit cash, or link the fees paid to the plaintiff’s attorneys to something sensible, like hours worked or how many coupons are redeemed.

And yet in the face of these common sense measures, here is how the Democrats have responded:

• “It’s the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “And these people are saying that your state isn’t smart enough, your jurors aren’t smart enough” to hear those cases.
• “The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens,” said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.

Well, they’re both wrong. What is being said is that there has to be some sensible fit between a particular jurisdiction and the suits that get filed there. If you file the case in federal court, the jury pool isn't bussed in from somewhere else in the country. The point is that class members must have an actual benefit before attorneys can expect to reap huge fees.

No one is saying people or states are too stupid to hear cases. No one is saying corporations and organizations have more important rights than individual citizens.

Even for someone generally opposed to tort reform, these measures are common sense. And welcome.