Found a somewhat interesting personal injury blog. This particular post hits on some of my thoughts about so-called tort reform.
While I oppose many of the common tort reform proposals for such reasons, I have long advocated a far more significant tort reform approach. Under my approach, there would be no pain and suffering damages for ordinary negligence. I would do this only at the state level, as I think the federal government should keep its nose out of such things.
Why do I support this? Ordinary negligence includes things like driving 56 in a 55 mph zone - things we all do. I would require a higher standard for pain and suffering -- gross negligence. Driving 70 mph drunk in a school zone would qualify. One would still get lost wages and medical bills when injured by someone else's ordinary negligence.
This approach would eliminate 90+% of personal injury cases and cut insurance premiums by more than half. And that's why insurance companies don't want real tort reform.
And by the way, as a personal injury lawyer, I would lose a lot of money if my proposal were adopted. But we would live in a better society.
