Va. Bill Aims to Limit Liability Suits

The Washington Post ^ | January 21, 2004 | Jo Becker

[neverdem]

Republicans Want to Exempt Gun Manufacturers, Tobacco Companies

RICHMOND, Jan. 20 -- Virginians would not be able to sue gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, fast-food restaurants or other companies making "inherently unsafe products" whose dangers are well known to the public under legislation proposed Tuesday by House Republican leaders.

Those liability exemptions are part of a larger GOP legislative package to limit circumstances under which injured people could bring lawsuits and to encourage settlements. Supporters said the measures would help prevent frivolous lawsuits, and opponents said the efforts were a "set of solutions looking for a problem."

"Individuals suffer from the increased cost of insurance and the increased costs of goods and services," said House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), a proponent of the legislation.

But David Anderson, lobbyist for the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, said: "A number of provisions in this package would palpably curtail the rights of individuals."

In recent years, trial lawyers nationwide have looked to apply to other areas arguments they used to win huge settlements for states from the cigarette industry. Gun manufacturers have been sued over instances of gun violence. More recently, lawsuits have targeted such fast-food companies as McDonald's, claiming they misled consumers about potential obesity dangers of their products.

Business coalitions have mounted intense lobbying campaigns at the national and state levels to curb such class-action lawsuits.

Efforts to prevent individual smokers from bringing the type of lawsuits that states brought against big tobacco are controversial but have succeeded elsewhere: California, for instance, exempted tobacco, alcohol and other companies from lawsuits arising out of injuries and deaths caused by the proper use of their products.

Del. William R. Janis (R-Goochland), who is sponsoring the exemption for makers of cigarettes, guns and fast food in Virginia, said his legislation is modeled on California's law. The legal system, he added, is no substitute for "personal responsibility and personal accountability."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks Virginia among the top 10 states with a business-friendly legal environment. But supporters of the legislation say a recent slip from second, behind Delaware, to eighth prompted concern.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is backing the legislation, as is the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys and the Medical Society of Virginia, which represents doctors. HMOs and other health insurers would benefit from a provision allowing them to recover money from plaintiffs who win medical malpractice damages against health providers.

The legislative package would benefit all manufacturers because it includes a provision that would make it more difficult to sue a company whose product is defective if the product was manufactured according to state or federal standards and the manufacturer had no knowledge of the defect.

Del. Robert F. McDonnell, a Virginia Beach Republican who plans to run for attorney general in 2005, said that's only fair. "Not every injury is legally redressable," he said.

Anderson said the provision is among the most troubling in the package. "State and federal regulations are promulgated with the heavy input of industry, so in effect this would be industry creating its own legal standards under which it can be sued," he said.

Anderson also will fight an effort in the Senate to impose a $250,000 medical malpractice cap on such non-economic damages as pain and suffering. An overall cap of $1.7 million exists in Virginia.

The proposed legislation would have to pass both House and Senate and be signed by Gov. Mark R. Warner (D). The governor has not taken a position on the legislation.

Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), chairman of the Senate courts committee, said that he is not convinced that the House's program is necessary.

"We're pretty well situated here in Virginia," he said. "We're not California or New York."

Staff writer Chris L. Jenkins contributed to this report.

[neverdem]

A California law that should be a model for the country is eyeballed by Virginia. Who'd a thunk it?

[microgood]

But David Anderson, lobbyist for the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, said: "A number of provisions in this package would palpably curtail the rights of individuals."

What he meant to say was:

"A number of provisions in this package would palpably curtail the rights of lawyers to get disgustingly rich on the backs of sucker clients and stupid juries."

[neverdem]

BANG