The American public is being bombarded with outrageous exaggerations and anecdotal evidence by both sides of the “tort reform” debate. Proponents of tort reform cite the horrors of a civil justice system they claim has spiraled out of control —multi-billion dollar verdicts result in a windfall for lawyers, a chilling effect on the business climate and doctors being forced to stop practicing in the face of the soaring cost of malpractice insurance. Those opposed to tort reform argue that the civil justice system is functioning as it is should and that tort reform is simply code for the efforts of big business and insurance companies to fatten profits by restricting the ability of individuals to seek redress for wrongs in court. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (Carole, 2004).
Until a few years ago, the term “tort” was the province of first-year law students. In legal vernacular, a “tort” is any civil wrong for which a damaged victim can seek redress from the party who caused the harm. Generally, liability and/or damage are determined by a jury of one’s peers. Injuries or harms include, but are not limited to, automobile accidents, medical malpractice, violation of civil rights, discrimination and product liability.
The best argument against the kind of tort "reform" aimed at limiting damage awards for plaintiffs is emerging in the current scandal over Merck's arthritis drug Vioxx (Web, 1).
Though Merck pulled the drug from the market Sept. 30 when a study indicated increased risk of heart attack and stroke among users, evidence surfaced recently that the drug makers may have - or at least should have - known for years that Vioxx produced such elevated hazards (Carole, 2004). Both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have opened investigations..............
