Comments on: Kiss A Trial Lawyer On The Lips

By: We’d Like Some “Access To Justice,” Please :: FITSNews

We’d Like Some “Access To Justice,” Please :: FITSNews — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:14 +0000

[...] It’s probably yet another quasi-governmental agency that’s emblematic of our state’s wrong-headed approach to pretty much everything … or yet another excuse for a bunch of glorified ambulance chasers to get together and talk about how important they are. [...]

By: Chink in Sic's armor

Chink in Sic's armor — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:27:32 +0000

Well said Ben. I think many people (Sic) think being conservative means simply falling in line on whatever the business lobby says.

This propaganda piece makes me want to vomit, and Sic’s obvious ignorance of the legal system has made this conservative seriously question the accuracy and reasoning of other material in this site.

Without “evil” lawsuits, companies have NO real incentive to make safe products. I for one prefer safe products to unsafe products, and the only incentive companies have to make such safe products is the threat of a lawsuit (barring heavy regulation).

“Why think when you can feel?” This catch phrase usually applies to liberals, but in this case it applies to those people drinking the NY insurance lobby Kool Aid (tort reform crew). It angers them that often liberal lawyers make money off these suits, but neglect to inform themselves of the reasoning behind tort law.

If one looks at the actual facts concerning tort reform, one realizes THAT INSURANCE RATES DON’T GO DOWN ONCE PASSED. The only thing that happens is northern insurance companies make a little more profit . . . profit that would otherwise go into the SC stream of commerce via injured SC workers getting money.

Tort reform may be pro business, just not pro SC business.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:30:10 +0000

Libertarians like yourself want to deregulate business and have tort reform simulataneously. Pure capitalism without protection for consumers does not give business an incentive to provide safe products or conserve the environment. Blah, Blah, Blah, you’ve heard it all before. My point is, I believe tort reform is necessary and I believe deregulation is necessary but there’s got to be some reasonable way to protect the consumer. What should it be? If the government doesn’t have the right to make sure products are safe on the front-end and consumers have no right to be compensated for dangerous products on the back-end, what incentive would business have to create safe products? If I can cut corners to create a product that is cheaper than like products on the market to create a sudden flux of demand, corner the market, make my million and take off, I can hurt millions of people with that product and I haven’t violated any regulation and the consumer can’t sue me. Let’s say the product is a pacifier and it is made out of a material that breaks down over time, will come off in the baby’s mouth and cause a potential choke hazard. The costs are so low, the pmarket can be easily cornered. The material takes a while to break down but before this comes to light millions of pacifiers are sold. Full deregulation means the government can’t tell the company not to use this material. Full tort reform means that when a baby chokes to death a parent can’t sue. There is no question that the state will have benefitted from the jobs and taxes from this company. On a cost-risk analysis, its not worth it.

I believe that the solution is balance. The polarized Libertarian solution like Sic’s tips the scale too much. The perfect balance is going to be for South Carolina to deregulate, reform tort law, and give corporate tax incentives just enough to be competitive, not create an environment where business has unfettered rights to become sanctioned gypsies. If our recent economic woes have taught us anything, its that we cannot depend solely on the market to regulate itself. I’m sure many readers will disagree with this. I feel sorry for those people.