Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
WSJ's Stephen Moore Book Signing Luncheon-Rescheduled for December 17
12.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, ... 
More

Recent Events
Victor Davis Hanson Orange County Luncheon December 5, 2012
12.5.2012 12:00:00 PM

Post Election: A Roadmap for America's Future

 More

Post Election Analysis with George F. Will & Special Award Presentation to Sal Khan of the Khan Academy
11.9.2012 6:00:00 PM

Pacific Research Institute Annual Gala Dinner

 More

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
10.19.2012 5:00:00 PM
Author Book Signing and Reception with U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print The Lawyers Killing N.Y.
Business and Economics Op-Ed
By: Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D
5.24.2006

New York Post, May 24, 2006

WHEN AMBULANCE CHASERS WRITE LAWS

WHY is the National Organization for Women angry with Speaker Sheldon Silver's bill to remove New York's statute of limitations in rape cases? Because the Assembly's leader also inserted a poison pill to please his fellow tort attorneys.

Right now, rapists who escape prosecution for five or 10 years (depending on the case) get off scot-free. The Senate has passed a bill to change that. But Silver's Assembly bill would also eliminate the statute of limitations in civil rape cases.

Problem is, civil liability can apply not just to an attacker but to a place of business in which an attack took place - making the provision highly controversial, and thus killing chances for change in the criminal law.

Why would Silver insist on the provision? Simple: He practices law at personal-injury firm Weitz & Luxenberg. Plenty of other lawmakers - in both Albany and New York City - have the same career. Their top goal is to help trial lawyers turn a buck - even if it means derailing sensible legislation.

By constantly promoting a litigious environment - and steadfastly opposing tort reform - these New York lawmakers drive businesses and jobs away to other states with more rational laws. Few companies want to do business in states where they'll be on the hook for millions if a phony lawsuit gains traction.

Our new study, the U.S. Tort Liability Index, ranks states' progress in creating a fair and efficient state tort system. New York comes in at a dismal 48th place. In fact, the Empire State ranks dead last in 17 of the 39 variables we used to score the states.

New York ranked third-worst in the nation in legal threats, which tracks the effect of lawyers and the extent of litigiousness. The state has the highest number of active and resident attorneys per dollar of gross state product. And it ranked fifth-worst in the total number of civil cases per 100,000 people.

Some of these cases have become famous - like 272-pound Caesar Barber, who blamed McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Kentucky Fried Chicken for making him fat.

When claimants win, it's not just companies who pay. Often, taxpayers are on the hook. New York City juries awarded $9.3 million to a man who lost his left arm after falling on the subway tracks while drunk and $1.2 million to someone who jumped on purpose in a suicide attempt.

Cases like these are part of why New York City pays out $550 million a year in liability claims.

Of course, tort law serves an important purpose - to compensate the victims of wrongdoers for their losses. But over the years, the law has been twisted into a system that often punishes for actions related only remotely to the victim's injuries, and in amounts wildly disproportionate to the harm caused.

Who wins?

The lawyers. In 2002, injured claimants received only 46 cents for every dollar paid by insurance companies for tort losses.

Everybody else ends up paying the costs of tort excesses. Liability insurance to protect against lawsuit costs is an ever-increasing operating expense for businesses. The more a business spends each year on insurance, the less it has to spend on research, wages and health care. Prices go up, too.

The President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated the excessive costs of the tort system nationwide were $136 billion in 2000 - equivalent to a 2 percent tax on consumption, a 3 percent tax on wages, or a 5 percent tax on capital. The same methodology puts today's excessive costs at more than $198 billion a year - equivalent to a tax of $2,654 on a family of four.

To put that in perspective, in 1950, America's tort system cost only $93 per person (adjusted for inflation).

Leaders in other parts of the country are making common-sense reforms to repair our out-of-control tort system. Many states, for example, cap the amount a jury can award for non-economic damages, which are designed to compensate plaintiffs for hard-to-quantify costs like "pain and suffering" or "mental distress." Studies show that such caps lower insurance costs and litigation rates.

New York is one of only six states that have imposed no such caps. With many of Albany's lawmakers trial lawyers themselves - like Sheldon Silver - it's no surprise they've failed to act.

Maybe it's time to take back the law from the lawyers.

 


Lawrence J. McQuillan is director of Business and Economic Studies at the Pacific Research Institute; Hovannes Abramyan is a PRI policy fellow. They are co-authors of "The U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2006 Report."
Copyright © 2006, New York Post

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources