Legal Question in Discrimination Law in Florida

Re: tort

A tort is the legal name for an injury to a person that occurs from any non-criminal conduct. For example, medial malpractice is a type of tort. Being hit on the head with a falling brick from a construction site would constitute the tort of negligence. Trespass, invasion of privacy, and defamation are other types of torts.

When you are the victime of a tort, you can sue the "tortfeasor" - the one who hurt you, in court. Juries can award as much in damages as they feel is appropriate, within certain guidelines dwepending on the case.

Tort reform refers to the "movement" that began in the late 80's (in my view when Dan Quayle started attacking "tassle-loafed" lawyers as a convenient political target), largely put forth by the conservative, Republican politicians in D.C. (who are mostly pro-business), to limit the amount of damages that would be available to victims of torts. These people claim that lawsuits and jury verdicts are out of hand, and lawyers make too much money, so their solution is to limit liability for companies that caused the problems to begin with (such as the Dalkon Shield mess, asbestos liability, the FORD Pinto gas tank, etc.).

This ignores the fact that companies and everyone else (doctors, lawyers, accountants, plumbers, etc.) should be held responsible for faulty products and other conduct that harms people, and it should be left to a jury to decide damages based on the facts of each case. It also ignores the actual statistics that show that large jury verdicts are relatively rare, although those are the ones that make headlines. (It is also not lawsuits that drive up the cost of helath insurance and drugs, as the Republicans like to claim, but exorbitant prices charged by drug companies in order to recoup their R&D costs on new drugs.)

The tort reform movement in Florida now also seeks a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money a lawyer can get from a damages award. (It may be on the next ballot.) What this actually does is limit the amount of lawyers who would take such suits, thus making it harder for people to get representation when they are hurt. This in turn protects companies from lawsuits, which is the real pupose of the propsed amendment - not to limit legal fees which should only be between the client and the lawyer.

Hope that gives you an idea of the issue.

Jeff Sheldon

Jeffrey L. Sheldon, Esquire

The Sheldon Law Firm

17804 St. Lucia Isle Drive

Tampa, FL 33647

813.986.7580

(f) 813.986.7489

(Admitted in Fl., MD, D.C., and Pa.)

[email protected]

http://www.SheldonLawFirm.com

Disclaimer: This posting does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. It is not confidential, nor is it privileged, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult with an attorney for advice specific to the facts of your case.