I really can see no good reason why this isn’t on the table among the Democrats.
Look at what happened in Mississippi:
Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state’s largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.
Holy crap. Even the lawyers , who obviously don’t like it, can’t call it unfair:
In the wake of tort reform’s passage, Barbour added, plaintiffs still have the right to sue and recover damages, and trial lawyers can still make a living — just not at the previous, exorbitant level. “It has not been very contentious,” he said. “Most of the trial lawyers — particularly the ones who are really good lawyers, think that it’s fair,” even if “they don’t like it.”
Here’s what they did in Mississippi:
Changed rules of venue, to prevent abusive court-shopping.
Got rid of the rule of “joint and several liability” — as Barbour put it, in order to protect the defendant who is only “2 percent negligent” but who has the “deep pockets” that trial lawyers look for when deciding whom to sue.
Protect innocent landowners and sellers of products. Under the reforms, “if a pharmacist is selling a drug that the FDA has said is appropriate for the purpose it says it’s used for, unless the pharmacist knows it has been tampered with, then that pharmacist is immune,” said Barbour.
Put caps on punitive damages, with a sliding scale based on the size of the defendant corporation.
Put caps on non-economic damages, particularly to deal with medical malpractice liability.
thanks to the Anchoress