Opinion

Not reformed

When asked what tort reform is, most Americans will scratch their heads and shrug their shoulders before replying with a nervous “I don’t know.”

This is because most Americans don’t know a lot about their civil justice system.

Many people have heard the term“frivolous lawsuits mentioned by politicians, and how tax dollars are wasted on these frivolous lawsuits through court costs. Upon hearing this, people jump to agree with politicians. The politicians then cite the now infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case, when Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s for making coffee that was “too hot.” Or at least that’s how the politicians spin it.

What really happened with the Liebeck case, and what politicians don’t talk about, is this: A 79-year-old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at her local McDonald’s. McDonald’s knew that keeping its coffee at 190 degrees was troublesome. They had settled about 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents before Liebeck.

However, during the trial McDonald’s testified that it did not know its coffee was that hot, and that they hadn’t consulted with a burn specialist. But the Shriner Burn Institute had indeed warned McDonald’s not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision to award $2.7 million to Liebeck. Ultimately, Liebeck settled for an undisclosed amount with the corporation.

Gov. Rick Perry has touted tort reform as one of the reasons for the “Texas miracle.” And, former President George W. Bush used tort reform as one of his platforms when he ran for governor in 1994. Since 2003, the Lone Star state has adhered to the policy of “loser pays,” which means that the losing party of a lawsuit must pay the court costs of the opposing party.

Stories like this happen all the time, and the civil justice system is in place to protect citizens.  However, what tort reform really amounts to is the reduction of citizen protections.

In Texas, big businesses pump money into the election campaigns of conservative legislators and judges. This leads to a court system that sides with businesses nearly all of the time.

An unfortunate effect of this is that there is a cap on non-economic damages. If someone wins a lawsuit for medical malpractice, the maximum amount of money they can receive as a settlement is $250,000 from a doctor and $750,000 from a hospital.

If one of your family members is gravely injured by an incompetent doctor, and you sue that doctor for the amount of money your family member will need to pay in healthcare costs for the rest of their life, you can only receive $250,000. Even if their actual healthcare costs are closer to $6 million, the cap remains at $250,000. Even if the jury awarded you more money, the judge would reduce the amount to $250,000.

Politicians might say tort reform protects taxpayer money, but I think we all know who it really protects.

Alejandro Caballero is a creative writing junior and may be reached at [email protected].

4 Comments

  • Tort Reform is a legal weapon used in Texas against Texans ever since Governor Rick Perry signed the 2003 Tort Reform Act.

    Providing a link to a video showing the collateral damage left behind Tort Reform.


    If link is not accessible, just Google Cleveland Mark Mitchell, then click on youtube Cleveland Mark Mitchell December 12 1950 – April 26 2008.

    If you want to see the face of the docotr who dropped the ball in the video, Google WHY DID YOU DROP THE BALL DR ANDRADE?

    Thank you for your time.

  • My computer is acting strange.

    The link to the video in the above letter is:


    Also, the word is "doctor" .

    Need another key board or computer.

  • Medical bills (past, present and future) and lost wages are considered economic damages, so those can be recovered in judgement. Noneconomic damages are things like pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of companionship; these are the awards that are capped. I'm not commenting on the merrit of capping noneconomic damages, merely pointing out the factual error in the article. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

    And while I'm not an attorney, my (albeit limited) understanding of the "loser pays" concept is that it is designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits that are small in nature. For example, if I claim I tripped on your uneven driveway and sue you for $5k, without loser pays, you will pay me because defending your position will cost you more than $5k in lawyers alone. Loser pays would allow you to defend yourself against my frivilous lawsuit. Its not a perfect system, but it does protect common people (particularly homeowners) as well as corporations.

    • Hey BA you're exactly right about the diff b/t economic and non-economic damages.

      The only thing is that sometimes economic damages don't end up really covering everything (b/c of future complications), or they pay out too slowly, or they are negotiated down, or they don't cover costs needed to care for families of the victims. So while some people (not saying you; namely Perry) think non-econ damages are terrible, it really depends on the situation.

      The only thing "loser pays" misses is the psychology of taking on a lawsuit. Lawyers don't seek out frivolous lawsuits, since winning makes them more money (plus, who'd want to lose). I think the idea of "frivolous lawsuits" is prob overblown. A lawyer who is confronted with a case that he thinks is "frivolous" will advise a client against suing (mediation instead – cheaper/faster than lawsuit).
      But yeah loser pays is already used in the UK, and you're right about how it works. From what I have read, it just tweaks the system; not a big deal.

      I just don't get how deregulation-man Perry justifies regulating courts, when he doesn't have the credentials to know what he's talking about (he's not a lawyer/judge/researcher/etc.)… :-/

      Also this stuff is really hard to measure, so it's hard to determine what effect tort reforms have.

Leave a Comment