Is “Tort Reform” something we need as a society, or is it just a concept derived by politicians to save big businesses, as well as insurance companies, cities, states and other municipalities from the expense of fairly compensating accident victims for injuries caused by a defendant’s negligence?
OUR OPINION
“Tort Reform” is a politically correct label for the concept of depriving accident victims of monetary compensation for their injuries caused by dangerous conditions, or by a defendant’s negligence. The proponents of “tort reform” argue that accident victims are not entitled to be compensated for their injuries, either because they must have caused their own accidents, or because they should be more careful navigating through the maze of hazardous conditions that we may face in our daily lives.
We believe that defendants must take responsibility for the hazards that they create or fail to repair, such as broken sidewalks, improperly maintained apartment buildings, wet floors that were mopped by an employee who left no warning signs, slippery supermarket floors caused by employees carrying or dragging a leaking bag of garbage, hidden staircases or open cellar doors without warning signs, inadequate lighting, dangerous products lacking readily available safety devices, and other preventable hazards that we may face because the responsible person or business was careless, negligent or simply didn’t bother to take proper precautions to protect us from dangerous conditions on their premises.
We strongly disagree with the “tort reform”advocates’ argument that people should be expected to accept those dangers as normal, and that in the event of serious injury, they should not be compensated.
If our system of justice does not hold defendants accountable for negligent conduct that causes serious injuries, there will be little incentive for landlords, store owners, manufacturers, etc. to maintain high levels of safety, which we all deserve.