The Tort Tax

Wall Street Journal ^ | 3/27/2007 | LAWRENCE J. MCQUILLAN and HOVANNES ABRAMYAN

[mborman]

Economists have long understood that America's tort system acts as a serious drag on our nation's economy. Although many excellent studies have been conducted, no single work has fully captured the true total costs, both static and dynamic, of excessive litigation.

[mborman]

We're in deep defecation and haven't a shovel! Actions by the politcal class in league with the lawyers is a gigantic train wreck!

[JoeGar]

You can read the article at ...
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-the_tort_tax.htm

[longtermmemmory]

why would any state reduce torts when some states have a punitive damage tax? (the state gets a piece of the punative damage portion of the award)

[JoeGar]

You can read the article at ...
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-the_tort_tax.htm

Oops -- same title and publisher but the posted article is different.

[econjack]

I like the British system. If you sue someone and lose, you have to pay all of their expenses associated with them defending themselves. I have a friend who owns a successful craft business and was sued for an absurd product liability issue. She spent over $300,000 plus months of her time defending herself and was found not guilty. The cost to the plaintiff for bringing a totally bogus case to court: zero...nada...zilch. Things like this are a crap-shoot for the plaintiff. All they have to do is find a lawyer who thinks he can convince a jury he's right. This is just plain wrong.

[Redbob]

The salient points, wherever you read it, are that lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits cost this country $865 billion per year, equivalent to a "tort tax" of $9,827 on a family of four.
This compares to the total annual output of all 6 New England states - as if that were a meaningful number.

This cost is made up of a combination of direct costs -
money taken from the pockets of producers, and put into the pockets of leeches lawyers;
and indirect costs, non-productive actions people take to protect against the chance of baseless lawsuits, like unnecessary extra diagnostic procedures in a doctor's office.

[SpaceBar]

So Shakespeare was right after all.

[Logophile]

Plaintiffs' lawyers admit the existence of magnet courts. Dickie Scruggs, one of the nation's foremost plaintiffs' lawyers, who pocketed hundreds of millions in the tobacco settlements, described it best at a conference last June: "[W]hat I call the 'magic jurisdiction' . . . [is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected . . . . They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal . . . . And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places . . . . Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is."

So "magnet court" and "magic jurisdiction" are simply other ways to say "den of thieves." I will remember that the next time someone talks in hushed and reverent tones about the jury system.

Do you suppose that a President John Edwards would do anything to clean up this mess?

[waverna]

Does that figure include the costs of liability insurance, such as property, auto and malpractice insurance? If so it may be overstating things a bit.

[mborman]

Totally different article from four year ago. Read. Post.

[mborman]

Do you suppose that a President John Edwards would do anything to clean up this mess?

He's the grinning fool (usually photographed being touched and founded by the swift boat veteran with three puple hearts) who is in the ranks of those who have ruined the country.

Thompson is a lawyer, but he would be a better president than most of the other candidates, save Tancredo.