Greed Gone Wild: "Tort Reform" Victory for George W. Bush, Defeat for Ordinary Americans, as Senate Passes a Bill to Keep Class Action Lawsuits Out of State Courts (updated)

by Eric Jaffa, Monday, February 14, 2005

Update of Feb. 18, 2005
Added this photo of Feb. 18, 2005 which shows Bush as he signs the "Class Action Fairness Act" (which should have been called the "Class Action Unfairness Act.")
End Update.

From the New York Times ("Senate Approves Measure to Curb Big Class Actions" by Stephen Labaton, Feb. 11, 2005):

Handing President Bush a significant victory, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure on Thursday that would sharply limit the ability of people to file class-action lawsuits against companies.

The measure, adopted 72 to 26, now heads to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders say it will be approved next week and sent to the White House for Mr. Bush's signature.

The measure would prohibit state courts from hearing many kinds of cases they now consider, transferring them to federal courts. Experts say many cases will wind up not being brought because federal judges have been constrained by a series of legal precedents from considering large class actions that involve varying laws of different states.

This will make it harder for injured people to get justice.

It will encourage corporations to shrug off the dangers of their products, knowing that the public will have less recourse when people are injured or killed by them.

Imagine what an ideal government would do about this issue; imagine having a government which asks:

How can we make it easier for people who have been injured to get compensated?

Instead of one which asks:

How can we make it more difficult for people who have been injured to get compensated?

For more on the topic of "tort reform," including the controversial hot-coffee-at-McDonald's-case which proponents adore talking about, go to Corp. Reform. The writer points out that while the canard is that a woman was paid millions for spilling coffee on herself, she got less than $500,000, and there is much more to the case (Corp. Reform blog entry of Nov. 20, 2003):

Most people think that a careless woman spilled some hot coffee on herself while driving, received minor burns, and then filed a lawsuit. That’s not what happened. Here's what did happen:

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother, was the passenger in her grandson’s vehicle and ordered a cup of McDonald’s coffee. McDonald’s served the coffee at approximately 190 degrees. McDonald’s admitted coffee at that temperature is “unfit for human consumption”; 190 degree liquid causes third-degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds of contact with skin.

Stella spilled the coffee on the crotch of her cotton jogging pants, and the coffee immediately soaked through her pants and caused third-degree burns to her legs, thighs, and genitals. The burns were so severe she needed skin grafts to heal the damage. It took many months for her to recover from the severe burns.

Stella offered to settle the case with McDonald’s if they would just pay her medical bills, which were into the many thousands of dollars. McDonalds refused, and Stella filed a lawsuit. During the trial, it was discovered that in the ten years prior to Stella’s accident, over 700 men, women, and children had been burned by the unsafe McDonald’s coffee.

For years, McDonald’s sold coffee that was “unfit for human consumption”, and made $1.3 million dollars a day in profit doing so. Information such as this wasn’t really reported by the media. What was reported was the $2.6 million dollar jury verdict.

The jury arrived at that figure by calculating the profit of two-days worth of coffee sales, and “fining” McDonald’s that amount to get their attention and make them fix the problem.

It worked. The day after the verdict, McDonald’s lowered the coffee temperature to a safe-but-hot 158 degrees. This is still hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but it takes closer to sixty seconds worth of exposure to do so.

Many believe that $2.6 million dollars was too much money. The judge in the case did, and he reduced the verdict to less than $500,000. Stella actually settled with McDonald’s for even less money. It took a multimillion dollar jury verdict to get McDonald’s to fix a dangerous problem they knew about for ten years; doesn’t that prove the system works?

Update Evening of Feb. 14

This is who supports Bush's "tort reform" (YEAs ---72)

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

This is who supports civil justice (NAYs ---26)

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2

Santorum (R-PA) Sununu (R-NH)

---------------

Bararck Obama's Yes Vote

Barack Obama (D-Illinois), a new US Senator, was interviewed by phone on "The Al Franken Show" radio broadcast today.

Radio co-host Katherine Lanpher asked Obama about his vote in favor of this bill.

Obama replied that he supported it because he doesn't want plaintiffs going to whatever state has the most sympathetic state judges.

(My response: Instead, injured people are now likely to face unsympathetic Bush-appointed federal judges.)

Obama also said that he doesn't want people suing the the Starbucks restaurant chain over lukewarm coffee and getting coupons.

(My response: The bill restricts attorney fees when the plaintiffs are awarded in coupons.

Whether or not the coupons aspect of the bill has merit, it certainly doesn't justify voting for the bill as a whole.

I assume the reference to Starbucks was hypothetical. If there was an actual lawsuit against Starbucks, please post in the comments about it.)

Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher didn't say whether they agree or disagree with Obama's vote during the interview.

Near the end of the interview, Al Franken implied that Barack Obama should be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. Al Franken said, "Obama/Sptizer 2008" (referring to Eliot Spitzer.)

I don't want Barack Obama to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

A person's position on "tort reform" says a lot about whether he's on the side of corporations or the people.

For 2008, I'd prefer John Edwards, who is on the side of the people.