Tort reform has been controversial, and it refers to changing the legal rules concerning how civil lawsuits are done. The primary function of tort reform is to reduce the number of law suites and reduce the cost of law suites. Tort reform is also used to provide consistency in civil litigations. Protagonists of tort reform argue that it is used to prevent excess damage awards. It, therefore, makes an award of damages only available to actual injuries that warrant the award of injury rather than using it for other motives. Proponents argue that When tort reform is not implemented in our current legal context, it results in high damage awards, resulting in high healthcare costs and increased premiums in the long run. It will also result in a reduced pace at which the economy grows (Gallegos,2018).

On the other hand, Opponents of this reform claim that the implementation will result in insurance companies limiting their liability, and they will cease being accountable for their actions. They also argue that however minor damages are, they should be compensated for. Limiting the compensation of damages are necessary to compensate for pain caused, lost wages, and medical expenses. Limiting such awards would deny victims and the right to fair compensation to them and their families (Gallegos,2018). In conclusion, my final submission is that I can't entirely agree with the proposed reforms. The issue of tort reform has positive impacts, and at the same time, it has some adverse effects. Reforms on a legal system should be based on proper and careful research and considering the cost and benefits of different approaches.

Reference

Gallegos, B. (2018). Tort Reform Under Constitutional Fire. In Denver Law Review Forum (Vol. 96, No. 1, p. 3).

By Elvin 1 year ago . Marked as helpful (142). Marked as unhelpful (263)