$500 million “winner” in Vegas! No, it wasn’t at a casino, it was in a court room. That’s the punitive “damages” awarded in a case involving a person contracting Hepatitus C from improperly cleaned medical equipment.
Noticed yesterday that the group practice where I used to see my primary care doctor has closed.
Obama! Obama!
Since the legal profession had set the bar at Perfection or Nothing, get ready for Nothing. If this problem had occurred at a government run hospital like the VA, can you sue the V.A. In a civil suit?
I remember being told at one point that the reason malpractice cases have become so ridiculously high is because trial lawyers have a lot of liability as well. So they say, if a plaintiff sues for a lower amount of money, and the jury awards something higher, the plaintiff’s attorney has to pay the plaintiff the difference as punishment for lowballing them. Thus, this is what supposedly causes lawyers to swing for the fences on these cases. I don’t have any idea whether or not this is true (I’m not a lawyer, and outside the U.S. Constitution I don’t know too much about the intricacies of the legal code), but if it is, it would have to be the first thing to target if there were to be tort reform in this country.
I’ve had an idea I haven’t thought through completely, but it goes like this. There is no down side today to suing for $10 billion, and when jurors hear a big number they are more inclined to award a big number. How about the plaintiff has to put up a bond equal to some percent of the amount of the suit? Possibly in combination with loser pays, so the person bringing the suit (or thei attorney) has their own cash on the line to discourage high claims and or pay the plaintiff attorney if the suit is without merit.
I think I’ve heard propsals (or maybe it is law in some places) that punitive damages should go to the State, not the plaintiff. The wrongdoer gets punished, but people suing are not motivated beyond recovering actual damages.