On September 1, 2011, Texas put into action the new Tort Reform Law. The TRL"s intent is to decrease the amount of frivolous law suits brought into Texas courts. It introduces a "loser pays" rule for motions dismissed in a civil action law suit. The loser pays rule requires that the losing party in a litigation pay the fees and costs of the prevailing party. The law was tweaked in committee to only allow prevailing parties to recover costs and fees at the motion to dismiss phase. This leaves the plaintiffs to strongly weigh their options and to really decide whether their case is sufficient enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Defendants are scarce to file because of the fear of obtaining all the costs of the prevailing party. And guess who backed this bill 100%... Gov. Rick Perry. The Gov. will put his stamp of approval on anything that will screw the financially less advantaged.
I'm not knocking the TRL all the way because there is some decency in it. For example, it does free up our courts a bit so that there is room for the cases that really need attention. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sorting through the junk cases, filtering out what is irrelevant because, obviously, not everything deserves it's day in court. The part I'm in disagreement with is Perry's full, undying support of the loser pays provision. Other states have used the Tort Laws to their advantage without issuing the loser pays rule. This is just another way to coddle big corporations, not to protect the commoners. This is yet another way to wrap a warm, fuzzy blanket around the financially elite. Thanks Gov. for keeping the rich warm.
After reading Melani's "Texas Adapts the Tort Reform Law", I discovered a few interesting facts about what was passed. On May 30, 2011 Governor Rick Perry signed HB 274 to create a “loser pays” tort system that applies to civil suits that are seeking between $10,000 and $100,000 in damages. The bill seeks to put everyone on an equal plane. It proposes that deposition costs be recoverable and an offer of settlement stipulation. If a defendant files a declaration to settle and the plaintiff rejects, the defendant can then the costs incurred since the earliest settlement offer was rejected. Before it went into effect, the plaintiff was allowed to collect the costs if he/she won, but did not allow the same for the defendant. Essentially, this doesn't mean Governor Perry wants to screw anyone out of fairness. In fact, the way it is set up, it will provide more equality to our court system.
ReplyDeleteIt also provides a reduction in frivolous law suits. Here in this day and age there are a number of ridiculous law suits and Texas apparently does not wish to be included among those other states where anything goes. Laura Rude-Barbato along with Athena Hohenberg sued Ferrero, the makers of Nutella in a civil law suit. The initial question in everyone’s mind is what happened to them? Were there peanuts in the product? Was there salmonella? Was there a recall; no, not at all. One of the mothers “discovered” the very visibly chocolate based product was not healthy. The parties involved claimed the advertisements were misleading and they were under the misconception that the product was healthy. Common sense would tell most consumers that by law the nutritional information must be clearly listed on the package, and it was. Mom apparently didn’t read the label. Why should that be the company's fault that she failed to turn the bottle to the side before putting it into her shopping cart, and subsequently on to her child’s toast in the morning? California is known for being a state where nearly anybody can sue anybody for almost anything. Along with the legislators who voted for this tort law reform last year (96-49), I live in the hopes that Texas never follows their example. I am glad that they have reformed this law to prevent frivolous law suits from going to court. It enables the court system to be more accessible since it is no longer bogged down with meritless cases. Hence, that enables the system to run more efficiently and in the long run less costly to tax payers across the board.