The Pros And Cons Of Tort Reform

In today’s society, tort reform remains an exceedingly controversial topic. There are some individuals who argue that tort reform bills should be stricter, while others argue that tort reform bills should be ruled in favor of citizens. Although the debate continues on in society, Congress has full authority in deciding which bills it wants to pass. Recently in an effort to make changes in our civil justice system, Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced four bills: The Innocent Party Protection Act (HR 725), The Fairness in Class Action in Litigation Act (HR 985), Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (HR 720), and Protecting Access to Care Act (HR 1215). Each of the reform bills introduced has received both support and opposition

In an effort to impede the filing of flippant lawsuits, the House of Representatives introduced the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. This act improves Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in refining attorney liability by reinstalling compulsory deterrents for filing frivolous cases. In addition, this act removes “Rule 11’s “safe harbor” provision that currently allows parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing claims after a motion for sanctions has been filed” (govtrack.us). While this bill has not been amended since it was introduced, it was passed “in an effort to protect individuals and businesses from unnecessary legal costs” (Smith, 2017). While this bill was passed with the intention to safeguard individuals from burdening legal costs, there are many agencies that both support and defend this act, with similar arguments. For example, the National Federation of Independent Business supports this legislation because it “significantly helps to reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits and motions by amending Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure” (Duggan, 2017). Supporters argue that Rule 11’s effectiveness in preventing frivolous lawsuits has diminished and that the “safe harbor” took the incentive away in filing flippant cases, while victims still encounter legal

One such agency is the American Bar Association, which argues that, “H.R. 720 seeks to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by rolling back critical improvements made to the Rule in 1993” (Susan, 2017). Opponents argue that there is no research to prove that frivolous cases are increasing and that the current legislation, Rule 11 is ineffective. Also, there is a risk that the new changes would hinder the justice department with an increase in the amount of lawsuits being filed, which could cause delays and increase courts cost. Based on my analysis for both sides of the argument, I believe that this legislation, H.R. 720 should not be brought forward. While the supporters argue that this act could help to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits, they do not indicate by what rate. Furthermore, I agree with the argument that this legislation could increase the amount of cases being filed, perhaps in an attempt to void this act. After reading this legislation, it came to my mind, how do we define what a frivolous lawsuit is. Those who are allowed to define it, may not have the same ideology as others, which in the long run may prevent individuals from voicing their concerns. In addition, I also believe that what might be said to be a frivolous lawsuit now, may not be frivolous in the end, as was the case in Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,