Tort Reform
Tort ReformThe cost of the U.S. tort system for 1994 was
$152 billion. Over the past ten years, it has increased 125%.
Between 1930 and 1994 U.S. tort costs have grown
almost four times faster than the rate of growth of the U.S. economy.
The U.S. tort system is the most expensive in the
industrialized world. U.S. tort costs are 2.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
substantially higher than that of other developed countries studied and two and
a half times the average of those studied.
The U.S. tort system returns less than 50 cents
on the dollar and less than 25 cents for actual economic loss to claimants.
Tillinghaust-Towers Perrin. Tort Costs Trends: An International Perspective, (New York, New York, 1995)
Origin of the Word
Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin tortum (a wrong), from Classical Latin torquere (to twist)
Short Definition
A wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation.
Legal term. A wrongful or injurious act (other than breaking a contract) for which a civil suit may be brought in court by private persons. If the suit is successful, the court may award the victims cash compensation for damages, "punitive" damages above the actual cost of the injury in order to punish the defendant, and/or a court order banning any future repetitions of the kind of behavior giving rise to the suit. For example, a householder might sue the owners of a nearby factory for creating excessive noise or pollution that interferes unreasonably with the householder's health or the peaceful enjoyment of his property. Tort law procedures are thus one of the principal mechanisms for defining and protecting property rights short of evoking criminal law and are an important governmental mechanism for trying to overcome the problem of negative externalities.
Long Definition
Tort, in law, the violation of some duty clearly set by law, not by a specific agreement between two parties, as in breach of contract. When such a duty is breached, the injured party has the right to institute suit for compensatory damages. Certain torts, such as nuisance, may be suppressed by injunction. Many crimes are also torts; burglary, for instance, often constitutes trespass. The history of Anglo-American tort law can be traced back to the action for trespass to property or to the person. Not until the late 18th cent. was the currently observed distinction made between injury willfully inflicted and that which is unintentional. In the early 19th cent., negligence was distinguished as a separate tort, and it has come to supply a large portion of tortious litigation. The general tendency today is to rule that the breach of any duty constitutes a tort, rather than to rule that an alleged tort must fit into some previously recognized variety, such as assault, false imprisonment, or libel. Some courts treat any willful unjustified injury as tortious, while others hold that the act must be defined as tortious by law, regardless of the perpetrator's motive. Torts that injure reputation or feelings are personal torts; those violating statutory rights are constitutional torts; those involving real or personal property are property torts. Property torts include several classes of torts, such as automobile accidents, negligence, product liability, and medical malpractice. In some areas, tort liability can be assigned without a finding of fault, as in no-fault automobile insurance. In areas where the finding of fault remains crucial, and the awards of compensatory or punitive damages can be substantial, tort litigation can be time-consuming and costly. Its defenders claim tort litigation promotes safety and economic efficiency, while critics argue the process does little but raise insurance premiums while providing windfalls to a handful of lawyers. Efforts to reform tort law hope to set limits to damage settlements and to broaden no-fault statutes for use in alternative forms of litigation. In the 1990s many U.S. states, pressed chiefly by conservative and business interests, passed laws limiting damages, but liberal state courts have repeatedly voided these limits as violations of “open courts” guarantees in state constitutions.
And, tongue firmly in cheek: