After BP’s mess, do conservatives still want ‘tort reform’?
Conservatives are big fans of so-called tort reform — generally speaking, a limit on awards for damages. The popularity of tort reform grows out of the idea that juries and trial lawyers come together to conspire against hardworking business executives and tireless doctors, making them pay out big sums of money for poor outcomes that were not their fault But an interesting outline of the consequences of the Exxon Valdez spill tells a different story.
Big Oil won out, with the help of its lawyers. From Portfolio:
The disaster seemed to be a clear case of negligence: the ship’s captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was legally intoxicated at the time, and had surrendered the wheel to overworked subordinates as it navigated the difficult, shoal-dotted waters of the sound.
But in a tale rivaling the protracted legal wrangling in Bleak House, litigation over the spill continues to drag on, two decades later, and the fishermen, cannery workers, and others whose lives were wrecked have yet to find out how much they may receive in compensation.(emphasis added)
Three numbers put the spill and its attendant lawsuits into perspective: 1.6 billion, 20, and 6,000.
The first number—1.6 billion—represents the approximate dollar payout that Exxon Mobil Corp. will make to plaintiffs. Maybe. One third of that amount would come from interest that tolled with the 1994 verdict—but the company is continuing to fight that matter.
The second figure—20—is the percentage of any payout that will be vacuumed up by the more than 80 law firms that have represented the plaintiffs.
The final number—6,000—is the most sobering, marking as it does an estimate of how many of the original litigants have died since the first suits were filed. Some 32,000 plaintiffs remain.
Liability questions focused on the captain, who had previously been disciplined for drinking on the job. A jury found Exxon responsible in 1994, awarding $287 million in compensatory damages (a number that rises to $507 million when other settlements are added in) and $5 billion in punitive damages.
Exxon appealed, arguing, among other things, that the captain’s malfeasance could not be imputed to the company and that it had already been punished enough by fines and cleanup costs.
Oddly, some Republicans in Congress are still working hard to protect BP from having to pay for its mess. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) From Swampland:
But it’s Vitter’s early support of a liability cap – he introduced legislation that he promoted in last weekend’s weekly GOP radio address – that’s landing the son of a Chevron petroleum engineer in trouble. Local and national Democrats have been pounding Vitter for seeking to limit the amount of legal damages BP would be responsible for to the last four quarters of profit. “Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not going to protect BP – and given their track record, we are certainly not going to rely on BP’s word as the only thing ensuring that taxpayers are not left on the hook to pay for the disaster they caused,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement.
It will be interesting to see what conservative voters in Louisiana think of that.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
136 comments Add your comment
tm
June 3rd, 2010
2:02 pm
Just think what tort reform could do to the pay our to the people who need it,
The first number is realy $1.28 Billion
The second number is $320 million. Tell me what risk these lawyers took in handling the case. The only risk was if Exxon had enough money to pay. Instead of taking 20 percent it should have be more like 5 percent, that would have put an additional $240 million to the folks who suffered. It just like these class action, the lawyers get millions we get coupons.
tm
June 3rd, 2010
2:07 pm
One more thing. The average payout in the Exxon case was a whooping $15,000 per person. 80 law firms got 320 million which is divided equally is 4 million per firm.
Sick&Tired
June 3rd, 2010
2:08 pm
Conservatives are hypocrites; so they will continue to support tort reform, with the exception of anything that will heavily impact their constituents.
Their biggest support for “Tort Reform” has been due to medical malpractice, which is much more likely to occur than an oil spill. Yet, they say you can’t really put a monetary value on pain and suffering.
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:09 pm
“It will be interesting to see what conservative voters in Louisiana think of that.”
You mean Obama approving a new oil well off their coast(according to the ajc earlier this morning)? I don’t think they’ll be very happy it either.
Joe
June 3rd, 2010
2:13 pm
No Ct- we want greedy idiots like John Edwards and Dickie Skruggs to make 100’s of millions of dollars on largely phoney law suits so that they get get $400 hair cuts and fly around in lear jets. Idiotic.
Joe
June 3rd, 2010
2:15 pm
Sick&Tired- the federal gov’t put a price on suffering via the 9/11 commission- get your head out of your arse.
Chuck Allison
June 3rd, 2010
2:17 pm
More than tort reform, we want election reform so we can avoid letting ACORN corrupt our election process. If we have not elected an incompetent boy as president, we wouldn’t have the oil spill now. BP was a major contributor to the Obama campaign fund!
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:17 pm
“Conservatives are hypocrites”
Really? Obama acts like he’s all mad at BP and all upset at the oil spill, then he goes and approves another oil well to built off the LA coast. Who’s the hypocrite there? I can’t believe y’all still defend this guy.
Wrecked
June 3rd, 2010
2:19 pm
Most conservatives I know want tort reform to control payouts on “pain and suffering” and other esoteric areas, not on actual damages. That is a HUGE distinction that I think a lot of people miss.
Dee keith
June 3rd, 2010
2:20 pm
Conservatives/unthinking SHEEP want whatever they can sell to their ignorant followers that will enable them to fill their pockets. The liability is why i’ve said I agree with President Obamas position on forcing BP to assume all the cost associated with this cleanup. But that also has a double edged sword to it, because if BP is footing the cost then they have the right to do it in what the see as a cost effective manner, which is what is putting Pres. Obama in a bind.
are you kidding me?
June 3rd, 2010
2:20 pm
The main purpose of tort reform, Cynthia, is to keep scumbag ambulance chasers like the womanizing John Edwards from using junk science to criminalize doctors from bogus accusations. As well you know.
Sick&Tired
June 3rd, 2010
2:21 pm
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:17 pm
OUT OF THE MOUTH OF David Vitter of the great state of Louisiana :
“Louisiana has been witnessing a severe lack of urgency and understanding from the Obama Administration and BP. Our state and our way of life continue to be under attack from the devastating oil spill, and now to make matters worse, President Obama’s has imposed a moratorium and shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless we lift Obama’s moratorium, it could kill thousands of Louisiana jobs.
Rigs won’t wait idly for six months, they’ll move overseas to places like West Africa or Brazil and take jobs with them. I have called on President Obama to replace his recently announced shutdown of deepwater rigs for immediate rig safety inspections.
This moratorium is estimated to kill up to 10,000 Louisiana jobs and possibly 20,000 jobs throughout the course of the year. Our workforce and economy have been significantly impacted from the oil spill, but Obama’s offshore moratorium could threaten potential revenue for Louisiana and be even more devastating.”
Scout
June 3rd, 2010
2:21 pm
You bet !
An accident is an accident. If “you” have one and get sued you want a “cap” also !
johnnybq
June 3rd, 2010
2:21 pm
Hell yeah we need tort reform. All they need to do is put a cap on the lawyers part of the take. For example, because I’m a greedy capitalists I own shares of stock in lots of companies. At least 5-6 time a year I get a proposed settlement offer because some slick attorney filed suit on the parent of one of my holdings. Usually something like the suite against Blockbuster a few years back over late fees. If I recall the attornies got 30 mil, the members of the class got 2 free rentals. Same with McDonalds (I forget the reason). Attorneys 34 mil (or whatever,) members of the class get 2 free orders of fries. Following this logic don’t be surprised to see attorneys getting 1 billion or more from BP (actually probably from Lloyds of London insurers) and each beach dweller getting a free bottle of sunscreen in the deal.
Lest we not forget, had the lunatic enviros not forced the oil companies into really deep water, this mess could have been prevented and fixed a lot quicker and with a lot less mess.
Joe
June 3rd, 2010
2:21 pm
Dee Keith- rather oxymoronic for someone to write three times a day about “unthinking sheep”
Maybe a red bull to stimulate your two functioning brain cells?
Libertarian
June 3rd, 2010
2:23 pm
Finally a topic that doesn’t involve gays, immigrants, or racism. I’m sure we’ll get there in 3, 2, 1… (shoutout to my friend Kamchak).
Anyhow, I think when most conservatives talk about tort reform it is with regard to doctors and medical malpractice suits. I am 100% for that type of tort reform. When you go to a doctor you have to assume that doctor is going to do his/her best to care for you in the best way possible. Everyone loves a doctor when they save their lives, however, when they mess up, everyone’s looking to sue. Its really a shame. AJC ran an article the other day about a father/son medical malpractice attorney group. I think one of their settlements was like $600 million. That’s absurd.
However, I am 100% for BP paying for their mess.
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:24 pm
Sick&Tired,
ttp://www.ajc.com/business/apnewsbreak-feds-approve-new-540229.html
“Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.”
Sick&Tired
June 3rd, 2010
2:28 pm
When you cut off the wrong leg or take out the wrong lung; it’s definitely a case for a malpractice lawsuit. There isn’t anything absurd about $600 million, when the cost of medical care can run into the millions of dollars very quickly. If you live 10 years as a sick person, you might run a couple of hundred million dollar tab with (doctor visits, medicine, hospital stays, etc….) alone and that doesn’t include suffering.
Joe
June 3rd, 2010
2:28 pm
Libertarian- I think I agree. BP takes on all cost- what the heck are we blaming the gov’t for. Maybe I am wrong, but unless it is a tower error I don’t remember the FAA being castigated for plane crashes. Why are blaming Obama? If the whouse was able to ram home insurance reform it can’t grid out cost of doc errors and other trade errors? What do we pay these people for?
Sick&Tired
June 3rd, 2010
2:30 pm
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:24 pm
Yeah, Peadawg, I’m not happy about it either. I don’t think we should be drilling at all. But, LA constituents can’t complain when their representatives are out there insisting on more drilling.
Peadawg
June 3rd, 2010
2:32 pm
“But, LA constituents can’t complain when their representatives are out there insisting on more drilling.”
Ya, I’m starting to not feel any sympathy for them anymore. They get what they asked for in this case it seems. We should have known they weren’t very smart when they built a city under sea level right on the coast.
Dee keith
June 3rd, 2010
2:33 pm
(Dee Keith- rather oxymoronic for someone to write three times a day about “unthinking sheep”
Maybe a red bull to stimulate your two functioning brain cells?)
Joe I understand it’s three times a day, but it takes a lot of effort to understand how a conservative/unthinking Sheep’s brain like yours works. That not something that can be accomplished in a lifetime let alone one day.
Granny Godzilla
June 3rd, 2010
2:35 pm
Why yes they do still support tort reform!
Unless they suffer at the hands of somebody or something and
that is, of course, an exception.
balls
June 3rd, 2010
2:40 pm
Granny is the type of crook that would sue a fast food joint if she split her hot coffee on herself. That type of nonsense is what tort reform is supposed to curb. Not legitimate law suits. Liberals are so f’n desperate.
Ricks
June 3rd, 2010
2:42 pm
It’s sort of an oxymoron to use the word “intellectual” in the same sentence as “Cynthia Tucker,” but I have to say, CT is the most intellectually dishonest “journalist” in the world. Reading this stuff is better than any Sunday comic.
Gordon
June 3rd, 2010
2:45 pm
Yes, I still like tort reform. Next question.
Sick&Tired
June 3rd, 2010
2:46 pm
I’m a die hard liberal and I have spilled coffee on myself numerous occassions. This has happened at restaurants and at my home; I’m not rich and I haven’t sued anyone ever.
However, if someone didn’t put the lid on correctly; it is dangerous and careless on their part. So, if you take the time to do it correctly, you don’t have to worry about getting sued.
Granny Godzilla
June 3rd, 2010
2:46 pm
balls
Delighted to see that you have stopped scratching yourself long enough to make such an elightening comment.
Remember to clean your keyboard before the next person uses it,
hygiene is for neanderthals too!
You Asked
June 3rd, 2010
2:47 pm
I am in favor of reimbursing victims for real damages. Tort reform isn’t going to prevent that from happening if done right. I am also in favor of tort reform.
Joy M. Herring
June 3rd, 2010
2:48 pm
In a word, yes.
Michael K.
June 3rd, 2010
2:48 pm
Typical leftwing argument. There’s one person who doesn’t have health insurance, so we should nationalize it (never mind the costs to everyone else). There’s an oil spill, so naturally we should remove all objections to tort reform (never mind that the lawyers will take home 50% of the money).
Cynthia loves European countries’ approach to government on the vast majority of issues, so why does she oppose moving towards a system liek theirs with sensible limits on the ability to sue and sensible limits on punitive damages.
Dee keith
June 3rd, 2010
2:49 pm
(More than tort reform, we want election reform so we can avoid letting ACORN corrupt our election process. If we have not elected an incompetent boy as president, we wouldn’t have the oil spill now. BP was a major contributor to the Obama campaign fund!)
Chuck Allison as long as you have a constitutional right to be ignorant we will always have a corrupt election process. Conservative personalities will always be able to use the ignorance of unthinking SHEEP like you to fill their pockets by getting you to vote against your own interest. The fact that you are DUMB enough to believe ACORN stole the election for OBAMA, and Glenn Becks latest controversey with his gold advertiser are two prime examples of that.
To quote Rush Limbaugh “IGNORANCE IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE COMMODITY IN SOCIETY”
Michael K.
June 3rd, 2010
2:50 pm
@Sick&Tired
Do you have even a vague awareness of how much things cost? You think that it costs $100’s of millions of dollars to treat anyone (let alone someone who simply lost a leg)?
RDL
June 3rd, 2010
2:51 pm
Enter your comments here
booger
June 3rd, 2010
2:53 pm
Absolutely!
Davis
June 3rd, 2010
2:53 pm
Frankly, my dear, I had rather be eating a ‘tart’, that read the disTORTing, extremely left-wing, liberal bolderdash you always manage to spew forth! As I have stated before, the AJC would probably have sent you packing long ago, if they could! Sad, very Sad!
Jack
June 3rd, 2010
2:54 pm
Tort reform makes sense: that’s why liberals are against it.
neo-Carlinist
June 3rd, 2010
2:54 pm
here’s what I don’t get (actually, I do). did BP have INSURANCE? as I have posted previously, you can’t get a mortgage without homeowner’s insurance. you cannot operated a motor vehicle without insurance. most businesses carry some sort of insurance. BP needs to “file a claim”. of course, I am confident the very same lawyers opposed to tort reform are busy filing motions so that we (and of course, their clients BP, Haliburton, et al) can determine who is liable and what the damages should be. then, another group will file a huge class action suit and BP will be fined hundreds of billions of dollars, and after the lawyers take 1/3, party to the class action suit will get $10.53, and the Gulf will still be a mess and oysters will be $50/lbs.
ctucker
June 3rd, 2010
2:56 pm
Davis, Who has tied your fingers to the keyboard and forced you to comment here?
ctucker
June 3rd, 2010
2:57 pm
Gordon, Should it apply in the case of BP?
ctucker
June 3rd, 2010
2:57 pm
Ricks, Pleased to provide you some amusement. But I note that you didn’t respond to my post.
balls
June 3rd, 2010
2:59 pm
Granny,
That was gross
Ricks
June 3rd, 2010
3:02 pm
What’s to respond to? I only respond to honest, sensible, logical statements. Not Daily Kos talking points that make absolutely zero sense in the real world.
As it has been repeated numerous times on here. Tort reform is mainly to stop ambulance chasing criminals like John Edwards, who fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife was at home dying from cancer.
I just love the compassionate leftists.
ctucker
June 3rd, 2010
3:03 pm
Ricks, I think you know perfectly well that a tort reform law cannot be constructed to stop lawyers you don’t like.
scrappy
June 3rd, 2010
3:04 pm
Perhaps a better type of reform would be to set some time of time limits on these things. It has been what, 20 yrs since Valdez? Can a resolution really not be found in that time?
Davis
June 3rd, 2010
3:05 pm
The Constitution, someting you and Holder might not have read, my dear!
Ricks
June 3rd, 2010
3:06 pm
Do you even know what tort reform is?
Granny Godzilla
June 3rd, 2010
3:11 pm
balls
my heart breaks for ya. ovaries are so much neater.
neo-carlinist
I think it’s Lloyds of London (Business week announced rate increases on oil rigs today)
Drawing Black Lines
June 3rd, 2010
3:11 pm
CT – Bill Clinton was in support of tort reform in the 90’s. Do you think he still is?
wow
June 3rd, 2010
3:15 pm
CT,
Why are you so bitter and enraged? Radicals like yourself should be ecstatic 24/7 right now!!! You have your ideal Marxist, anti-American, pro-terrorist headcase as President. I’m surprised you’re so angry.