Gov. Brian Kemp has made overhauling Georgia’s civil litigation laws his top priority this legislative session. Supporters often label such plans “tort reform.” But what do they mean? And why does The Atlanta Journal-Constitution avoid using that term?
What is ‘tort reform’?
Kemp said his proposal, unveiled Thursday, is a way to rein in lawsuits he and supporters believe have gotten out of hand in recent years, resulting in massive jury payouts.
In some rare cases, payouts in medical malpractice suits have racked up jury awards of more than $1 million in damages. In other instances, stores and other businesses are held liable for injuries and crimes that occurred in parking lots or inside stores.
About two decades ago, state legislators passed caps on medical malpractice pain-and-suffering awards and provided incentives for patients to settle suits outside of court. However, courts have slowly weakened provisions of that law, and the Georgia Supreme Court found the medical malpractice caps to be unconstitutional in 2010.
The proposal Kemp announced at a Thursday news conference aims to place limits on when people can sue businesses for some injuries and ban outside interests from funding the lawsuits. If passed, his proposal would also allow juries to factor in whether someone was wearing a seat belt in some cases when determining awards.
Where do the businesses and political parties stand on the issue?
The issue doesn’t split cleanly along party lines. Kemp and his Republican allies have pushed for the measure, saying that it’s crucial if Georgia is to remain a competitive state for business.
Corporate leaders, medical organizations and insurance companies are ready to fight for the overhaul this year, but they are likely to face opposition from trial lawyers and advocacy groups.
Corporations and insurance companies say that the measures would lower insurance premiums and cut the cost and time of going through the legal system. Medical professionals say it would attract more physicians to the state.
Opponents, including Democrats in the Legislature, say that there is not enough evidence that a litigation law rewrite would bring down the cost of insurance premiums and that it would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to win in court.
Why doesn’t the AJC call it ‘tort reform?’
Limiting jury awards in lawsuits is often called “tort reform” by supporters. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uses neutral language and avoids confusing legal terminology.
First, a “tort” is a legal term meaning a harmful act leading to a civil lawsuit, and while lawyers know that, not everybody else does. To clarify, the AJC chooses to avoid the word in favor of more common words.
Second, “reform” is a loaded word. Typically, it means to make something better, but not everyone would agree that changing the law in this way is better. As a result, the AJC uses more neutral words, like “change.”
There may be some instances where the term may appear in direct quotes from sources, but more often the AJC will describe “tort reform” as an attempt to change civil jury awards.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
