Strengthen bill on tort reform

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

changes in the state's civil justice

system, but it's only the starting point.

The state House of Representatives has passed a watered-down version of tort reform that admittedly makes improvements in our state's civil justice system. But while the House is to be commended for quick action on two critically needed bills, its action is too timid.

The state Senate has an opportunity in coming weeks to strengthen the House version in some important areas. State residents should push for a tougher bill that protects doctors and small businesses from aggrieved parties trying to strike gold in a lawsuit.

This isn't about taking away a person's right to recover economic damages when harmed because of the negligence of a business, and it's not about taking away a jury's right to punish the negligent party. It is about bringing some common sense to a civil justice system that's making it increasingly difficult for doctors to practice in high-risk fields and for businesses to operate without oppressive insurance premiums and the fear they are one lawsuit away from an economic catastrophe.

South Carolina residents deserve justice — and adequate compensation — if they are injured because of the negligent actions of a business or a doctor. But at the same time, all South Carolina residents deserve the dynamic economy and accessibility to medical care that comes from having a well-balanced civil justice system — one that doesn't make it impractical to set up shop in this state or practice medicine here.

Key parts of the House bill worth keeping are these: (1) Jury shopping is limited because cases must be filed where the defendant lives or the cause of action occurred. (2) Sanctions are added for frivolous lawsuits. (3) The right to cure has been expanded so contractors have the opportunity to correct a problem involving commercial property as they do with residential property. (4) A person claiming harm because of medical malpractice must follow a procedure that requires an attempt to mediate or arbitrate the dispute. (5) A

$300,000 cap is placed on damages for pain and suffering.

Make no mistake, these are significantly positive changes in the current law. But they're not enough. The Senate should: (1) Reduce punitive damages to three times the amount of actual damages, not the nine times factor in the House bill. (2) Limit "joint and several liability" so that when multiple plaintiffs are involved, they pay damages based only on their pro rata share of the proximate cause of the injury. (3) Scale back "non-economic" damages that are too high, at $2 million, in the House bill.

Tort reform is a terribly complex issue that is easily twisted for emotional purposes. But as Gov. Mark Sanford correctly noted in last week's State of the State address, change is needed "to create a more competitive playing field in South Carolina for building business or delivering a baby."