Opponents of the legal system exaggerate its costs, ignore its benefits
by Lawrence Chimerine and Ross Eisenbrey
Tort litigation has been blamed for driving liability insurance premiums to excessive levels, reducing real wages and overall employment, undermining corporate profits, dampening productivity growth, discouraging research and development, and generally reducing the willingness of corporations and individuals to take reasonable risks (such as introducing new products) that may benefit themselves and society. There is scant evidence for any of these claims. To the contrary, macroeconomic trends since the early 1990s are especially inconsistent with the argument that supposedly high and rapidly rising tort costs have inflicted serious harm on the economy. Yet the legal system's critics continue to argue that there is a tort liability 'crisis' that warrants changing the tort system, and that change is a key element in bolstering economic growth in the future. Yet these critics provide no credible evidence to support their assertions. In fact, what little effect changing the tort system will have on the economy might hurt job creation rather than help it.
A 'tort' is 'a wrongful act, damage, or injury done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought. Proponents of changes in the U.S. legal system have tried to associate tort litigation with a host of ills, from driving doctors out of business to closing municipal swimming pools. Increasingly, they argue that the tort system is a drag on the U.S. economy as a whole and, especially, on job creation and retention. "
If you are unable to settle your accident claim by yourself without filing a lawsuit, then you can look forward to paying over 1/3 of your claim, if not more to your lawyer to file a lawsuit for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment