Contrary to what a lot of insurance companies and businesses would like you to believe, personal injury lawsuit filings are down over the last ten years. Based on a Judicial Council of California statistical report, motor vehicle lawsuits are way down. This begs the question of whether there are really less injuries or whether injured victims are not being properly compensated.
For the full article.
A Cook County jury awarded $2.5 Million to the family of a nonagenarian who was struck by a van while crossing the street. The verdict included $1 Million for pain and suffering because the woman was alive when she was dragged 25 feet by the van. At trial, there was a dispute as to whether the woman or the driver proceeded on a red light. However, the jury did not hear evidence of a ticket given to the driver for “failing to exercise due care to avoid striking a pedestrian.” In reaching this verdict, the jury was asked to consider the quality and dignity of the life the woman led and the strong relationship she had with her family. The verdict speaks to the necessity of the availability of punitive damages, suggesting that many of today’s proposed tort reforms will only harm the families of individuals such as this woman that suffer unnecessarily.
For the full article, See Pat Milhizer, Law Bulletin, “Record verdict reached in death of nonagenarian,” June 20, 2008 Volume: 154 Issue: 122.
A former tort reform advocate recently discovered the degree of harm tort reform measures can cause on wronged patients. The advocate, a medical oncologist and an original force behind his state’s tort reform movement, admitted that tort reform has had the unintended consequence of juries denying admittedly wronged patients any recovery. He referred to a case where a pathologist misdiagnosed a woman leading to years of physical, mental, and economic harm to the patient. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned for the woman, but the jury refused to grant her any damages. The jury’s decision was influenced by a misguided fear created by advocates of tort reform that the physician would leave the state before compensating the injured woman. This case illustrates how tort reform measures have resulted in many patients being forced to pay for physician negligence out of their own pockets, a result not even the most ardent advocates of tort reform would support.
For the full article, click here:
Brain injury may not be the end of the road for some nursing home residents. An upcoming nursing home lawsuit will determine if some brain injured nursing home residents may be able to seek solace in more intimate and communal rehabilitation centers. Brain injuries can result from car accidents, medical malpractice leading to strokes or serious falls. Some brain injured individuals may through the court’s ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act be able to live in adequate homes and care facilities outside of the nursing home area. To see the full story on a ruling that could individuals over America & possibly one day Chicago, Illinois tort reform. To see the full story click here.
The Bowling Center Safety Act, an Illinois bill that would have insulated bowling alley owners and operators from liability, failed in committee. The bill provides that bowlers and spectators are deemed to have knowledge of the inherent risks at a bowling alley, and they therefore assume this risk, provided that the operator has not violated his duties under the Act.
The numerous deficiencies of this bill are illustrated by a Levin & Perconti case from 2006, involving a bowler who was injured at a bowling alley because the alley had dimmed its lights, reducing visibility. This was compounded by the design of the alley which had a one step difference between the floor level of the alley and the bowling level. Unfortunately, this step was not clearly marked, and because the lights in the alley were nearly off, the bowler lost his balance and struck his head on the seating area where bowlers sat. The injury resulted in severe spinal damage which ultimately led to the bowler’s death. Ultimately, Levin & Perconti was able to recover a nearly $500,000 settlement which was used by the bowler’s family to pay for many of his medical bills. Passage of the Bowling Center Safety Act would likely have insulated this bowling alley, denying the bowler’s family members the right to recover for injuries caused by the bowling alley’s negligence. This bill’s defeat is a victory for consumers and a blow to companies that fail to provide adequate safety and protection at their business.
Click here for complete bill status:
The FDA has proposed a rule in direct contradiction to a law passed by Congress that helps hold negligent drug companies accountable for injuries to consumers caused by prescription drugs. Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) recently which holds drug companies responsible for promptly updating drug labels when they become aware of new safety information. The new rule being proposed by the FDA will relax labeling requirements so that drug companies can use it to claim immunity for failures to warn patients and consumers of drug hazards. This is a form of bureaucratic activism, where unelected agencies like the FDA ignore the will of Congress. If the drug companies are not held accountable for failure to warn, unnecessarily injured consumers will not be able to win compensation from them and the burden will be transmitted to taxpayers.
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TODAY and urge them to investigate the FDA's attempt to upsurp Congress's authority to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their constituents.
The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) puts out an annual report. In 2007, the American Tort Reform Association's (ATRA) report called "Judicial Hellholes" cost $1.5 million to produce and distribute. However, no more than 10 newspapers referenced the report and those that did pointed out the report's flaws. The report was intended to expose a lawsuit crisis in the United States but in reality, it was just a message paid for by corporations that would benefit from restricting the civil justice process. The New York Times responded by stating:
The question is whether the report's arguments make sense, are supported by evidence and are applied evenhandedly. Here the report often falls short. It is, for starters, a collection of anecdotes based largely on newspaper accounts. It has no apparent methodology.Other research ventures also identified factual errors in the report. Here stands another example of the influence corporations have on the issue of tort reform because the real, fact-based information supports the maintenance of the civil justice system.
The recent federal indictment of Richard Scruggs is troubling for several reasons. Firstly, if the accusations turn out to be true, the fact that Mr. Scruggs is one of the nation’s most visible and successful trial lawyers will further damage the already existing negative stereotypes. Even if the accusations turn out to be false, the indictment will do nothing to enhance the reputation of trial lawyers. Secondly, the indictment is troubling because the ever-growing belief that large jury verdicts can only happen due to devious tactics and are never deserved will be further entrenched in our culture. This is especially a problem for the injured, neglected, and abused members of our society who are given one chance in front of a jury to correct the harms and losses they suffered. Small jury verdicts based on the belief that large jury verdicts (which are always widely publicized in the media and are always branded as mistakes) are just as devious as large jury verdicts obtained through bribes. Research by trial consultant David Ball and others has shown jurors often argue for lower verdicts as a result of the fear of public distain. What about the injured person or people? Verdict means literally ‘to speak the truth’ and the truth cannot be spoken when bribes or public pressure come into play. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, even Mr. Scruggs’ case.
For a recent article on the indictment click here.
Almost all of the contracts that an ordinary consumer is faced with contain a mandatory arbitration clause. Rental car agreements, cell phone contracts, warranties for electronics; they all require that, if there is a dispute between the consumer and the company, the issue will be settled out of court. In theory, these methods of alternative dispute resolution are good for both corporations and consumers, as neither side will be have to be saddled with legal fees and as arbitrations move much faster than court cases. However, a recent California law has provided insight into why this system is not working in practice. In 2002, California passed a law requiring statistics to be kept on cases that were resolved through these mandatory arbitration agreements. An analysis shows that the consumer almost always loses in arbitration, which is probably why only 118 out of 34,000 cases were filed by consumers. In addition, because the winner in arbitrations gets its costs paid by the loser, arbitration is frequently a lose-lose option for the consumer. As a result, there has been recent efforts in the Senate to make most mandatory arbitration clauses unenforceable.
Click here for the full article.
In response to the editorial published by the Chicago Tribune last week, lawyers, advocates, clients and victims of negligence and wrongful death have spoken out. Click here to read the responses to the editorial.
In response to a recent editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, consumers, advocates and those wronged by the conduct of others have spoken out. Last week, the Tribune published an article bashing trial lawyers. It is no surprise that the bashing came from a special interest group that protects insurance companies and big business.
The agenda of this group is not to protect consumers but to limit access to justice by citizens in Illinois who have been wronged by defective products, medical malpractice and catastrophic accidents. In reality, the civil justice system is the only way that injured people and families who have lost loved ones can hold wrongdoers accountable for negligence.
Consider the outraged response from a woman whose sister was killed in a workplace accident, leaving a child without a mother. Or the response of a consumer group dedicated to protecting citizens from the negligence of product manufacturers, big business and greedy insurance companies. Clearly, many of the citizens of Illinois realize that trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits are often the last line of defense for those wrongfully injured or killed and their families.
This weekend, the American Constitution Society, ACS, held it’s national convention in Washington, D.C. The American Constitution Society is one of the nation’s leading progressive legal organizations composed of lawyers, law students, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals.
Levin & Perconti was a law firm sponsor of this event.
For more information about ACS and to view the video taped panel discussions from the conference, click here.
Buried in the fine print of many consumer contracts for credit cards, new homes and cars are clauses that stack the deck against American consumers, forcing you to give up your rights to seek justice through the courts. These contracts force you to surrender your rights before a dispute even occurs. Binding mandatory arbitration forces victims into arbitration, instead of letting the courts and juries decide the outcome of the dispute. Many lives are ruined each year due to this injustice. However, you can make a difference and make your voice be heard!
Please Click here to email your congressman in support of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
1. The number of tort cases in U.S. district courts decreased by79% between 1985 and 2003.
2. The number of civil trials in state courts fell 47% between 1992 and 2001
3. The number of tort cases in state courts dropped 32% between 1992 and 2001
4. The median inflation-adjusted award in all tort cases dropped 56.3% between 1992 and 2001
Proponents of "tort reform" have pointed to the notorious frivolous lawsuits in the news. They have cited a study by a insurance consulting firm claiming that consumers bay a $200+ billion cost for the legal system. The Congressional Budget Office, Business Week and the Economic Policy Institute have all produced data disproving the insurance company promoted study. The studies reveal that the numbers put forth are not supported, the cost estimates include the millions of dollars in insurance industry profits and over exaggerate the impact of the tort system while ignoring its benefits and promoting the limitation of Americans' legal and Constitutional rights.
Click here for the full article
Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has filed a slip and fall lawsuit against the Yale Club in New York City after he tripped while stepping up on a platform to deliver a speech. After the spill, Bork successfully reached the podium and delivered his speech. The personal injury lawsuit has asked for an excess of $1 million in actual damages, not including the punitive damages Bork is seeking as well. Bork suffered from a leg injury that eventually required surgery. Bork, an 80-year-old conservative scholar, has written numerous times that Congress should enact some sort of “tort reform” to protect business interests. The irony of a tort reformer utilizing the system he is known to speak against indicates that even those who argue against the civil justice system cannot ignore the fact that it is the best available approach to fairly compensate those that have been wrongfully injured or killed.
Click here to read the complaint
Click here for the New York Times article
Click here for the tortdeform.com editorial
