Madison County Journal Joins Tort Reform Propaganda Machine
A definition of 'propaganda' is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view.” Last week's Madison County Journal's editorial supporting tort reform damages caps meets this definition.
Here are some of the gems from the editorial followed by my explanations:
Since tort reform, medical liability insurance premiums have decreased more than 60 percent.
Since tort reform, there has also been a severe recession with record unemployment that was caused by some of the business interests who campaigned for tort reform. But we gave those companies a taxpayer funded bailout and let them return to business as usual.
Also, medical liability insurance premiums decreasing by 60% wasn't caused by damages caps. It was caused by the Mississippi Supreme Court's eliminating Mississippi's mass-joinder law that allowed thousands of plaintiffs to be joined in a single suit.
By removing the incentive of extreme verdicts with exorbitant attorney's fees, Mississippi no longer attracts thousands of out-of-state plaintiffs clogging our judicial system.
Once again, the paper is crediting tort reform for something caused by the Supreme Court's elimination of mass-joinder.
Incidentally, I have never once seen an actual lawyer quoted as saying that caps are responsible for eliminating out-of-state plaintiffs as opposed to rulings by the Miss. Supreme Court. So where is the Journal getting its information? Haley Barbour press releases?
And when we wonder why all too often the judiciary did not throw out frivolous lawsuits and sanction attorneys for filing them, we simply think back to the words of Dickie Scruggs when he said "the judiciary is elected with verdict money."
The reference to Scruggs doesn't really fit the editorial. But Scruggs was a plaintiff lawyer who went to jail, so they needed to work him into the piece.
Mississippi can't afford a return to "jackpot justice."
How exactly would throwing out the caps return Mississippi to the jackpot justice days? They don't say. They just trust that ole Haley wouldn't steer them in the wrong direction on this.
The fact of the matter is that lifting the caps would not return Mississippi to the jackpot justice days. Those problems were caused by the mass-joinder law, venue law that no longer applies, Mississippi law that required defendants to post a bond of 125% of a judgment in order to appeal and less than 5 state trial court judges who were not doing their jobs. None of these problems exist anymore and none were affected by caps.
How do I know I'm right on this? First, have you ever noticed that none of these pro-tort reform articles ever quote a lawyer or legal expert such as a law school professor? Not even defense lawyers who campaigned for tort reform. Ever wondered why? Go back to the definition of propaganda and think about it.
Second, since med-mal caps were passed in 2002 and non-economic caps in other cases were passed in 2004 there has not been a single case where the Mississippi Supreme Court had to rule on the constitutionality of the caps. That tells you how few and far between are cases where the caps actually apply.
Tort reform proponents ignore the fact that both the trial court and the appellate court can reduce damages awards that are out of line based on the facts of the case. In the last seven years the Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed most plaintiff verdicts, regardless of the verdict's size. The Court has affirmed some plaintiff verdicts since Alex Alston wrote his article a few years ago pointing out this fact. But plenty of verdicts are still being reversed.
I don't know what the Supreme Court will do with the caps issue. But I do know that there are smart justices on the Court. I'm sure they know that tort reform honks are taking the credit for eliminating jackpot justice that should go to the Court. So whoever the pro-tort reformers are trying to fool, it's not fooling the nine justices who will actually decide the issue.
"Also, medical liability insurance premiums decreasing by 60% wasn't caused by damages caps. It was caused by the Mississippi Supreme Court's eliminating Mississippi's mass-joinder law that allowed thousands of plaintiffs to be joined in a single suit."
That is an interesting assertion. I could see it being true of pharma suits, but taking "medical liability" to mean malpractice and not a species of product liability, I don't see how the demise of mass-joinder suits affected malpractice premiums in the least.
So, did you mean product-liability suits, or is there some connection to med-mal that I have missed?
Doctors were in the pharma suits.
Local doctors where the in-state venue defendants in pharma suits. Doctors were getting named as defendants in all the mass tort pharma suits.
The doctors' insurance carriers had to pay for their defense in those cases. Those defense costs were very high. I know one doctor whose carrier went bankrupt, and it took him years to pay the defense costs out of pocket. And he was never a real target defendant.
Local doctors in the pharma cases were like the local paint and hardware stores in the silica and asbestos litigation. They were named to get the case in state court in a plaintiff venue.
One aspect about the tort reform statutes that I do like are the innocent seller provisions that allow these types of defendants to get out of a case.
Ah, then that's what I was missing. Thanks!
I think the public would be astonished if the entire universe of jury verdicts from Mississippi Courts were published and made available to the public. One would find very quickly that most verdicts favor Defendants, not Plaintiffs. I am beginning to form the opinion that attorneys start educating the public themselves about the true reality of jury verdicts in order to combat the persistent misuse of jury verdicts in Mississippi to support tort deform policies.
Not trying to use your own words against you, BUT: (1) "That tells you how few and far between are cases where the caps actually apply." If they are so rarely implemented (i.e. a nonfactor most of the time), why do you campaign against them so passionately?; and (2)"In the last seven years the Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed most plaintiff verdicts, regardless of the verdict's size." During the referenced time period, we have had a fairly moderate to conservative court. That has not always been the case. I can certainly evision a day where we ill again have a fairly liberal court that would be unwilling to overturn jackpot verdicts.
I don't know 'Crash'. Maybe I just don't think its fair when a company's unsafe plant blows up a bunch of ordinary working folks and the company gets to settle for a fraction of the real damages due to the caps.