Tort reform is one of the "conservative" talking points, meaning that individuals shouldn't get seven figure settlements, or even six figure settlements, against doctors and corporations.
It's very strange that we hear nothing about tort reform regarding seven figure settlements won by large corporations.
Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, was a jury foreman in a case against a dealership where a woman slipped on spilled diesel fuel and was injured. She was awarded $472,000. See "Larry Ellison's latest job: jury foreman", Yahoo Finance, 2011-04-26. When will she collect? Will the dealership appeal?
The same article mentioned that Oracle won a $1.3 billion verdict for copyright infringement agains SAP. SAP is appealing.
An even bigger suit was won by St. Jude Medical, $2.3 billion for theft of trade secrets. This suit was against an individual and another company.
Does or should tort reform apply in this case?
Showing posts with label trial lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial lawyers. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Tort reform? Let's cover all the bases
Many are calling for tort reform, meaning that judgments against corporations should be limited in what is payed to individuals. However, there are three other kinds of tort cases - corporations vs. corporations, corporations vs. individuals, and individuals vs. individuals.
The amounts that corporations ask against each other dwarf by a couple orders of magnitude the amounts that individuals ask against corporations - billions against millions or less. The amounts that corporations ask against individual often exceed the individuals ability to pay. And suits of individuals against individuals are often settled in small claims court (or by Judge Judy).
The judgments against corporations in favor of individuals are not completely paid to the individuals. Yep, much of the money goes to "greedy trial lawyers". But why otherwise? Many suits against corporations are done on a contingency basis; that is, the lawyers only get paid if the judgment is made in favor of their client. On the other hand, many corporations have deep enough pockets to hire legal firms outright on an hourly basis, both for court time and research. Aren't the trial lawyers for corporations as greedy as the lawyers working for individuals? Isn't one of the reasons for a democratic government to give the Davids a chance against the Goliaths?
The amounts that corporations ask against each other dwarf by a couple orders of magnitude the amounts that individuals ask against corporations - billions against millions or less. The amounts that corporations ask against individual often exceed the individuals ability to pay. And suits of individuals against individuals are often settled in small claims court (or by Judge Judy).
The judgments against corporations in favor of individuals are not completely paid to the individuals. Yep, much of the money goes to "greedy trial lawyers". But why otherwise? Many suits against corporations are done on a contingency basis; that is, the lawyers only get paid if the judgment is made in favor of their client. On the other hand, many corporations have deep enough pockets to hire legal firms outright on an hourly basis, both for court time and research. Aren't the trial lawyers for corporations as greedy as the lawyers working for individuals? Isn't one of the reasons for a democratic government to give the Davids a chance against the Goliaths?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)