In today’s economy, there lies an ambivalent nature towards government interaction with business behavior. The diametrically opposing ideas battle for supremacy in order to distinguish whether to keep the current tort reform policies or abrogate the notion and let the market stabilize the inconsistencies.
The primary and most salient argument for reform is that tort laws undermine the essence of businesses. Advocates for business and professionals have insisted that it is a drag on innovation, quality, and competitiveness. Quite possibly the most profound rhetoric lamented by reformers is that expansive product liability stifles economic activity by imposing excessive and unpredictable liability cost on businesses. Furthermore, cost inequalities are another aspect which ignites vehement discussion amongst business owners. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small businesses are hit harder; firms with fewer than 20
…show more content…
Specifically, these policies explicitly establish an amalgam of benefits for the customer. First, the threat of liability might incentivize manufactures to sell safer products and second, the imposition of liability could help ensure that products’ prices reflect their true social cost. Through the apparatus of government, certain victims can beseech laws to substantiate their claims in order to formulate an outcome that is more congenial to their needs. In both principle and practice, tort law’s particular form of accountability has an egalitarian aspect that renders it distinctive and valuable, and the law of products liability is in this particular way equality reinforcing. Despite the injurious slander being tossed around about several cases, the seemingly endless juxtaposition of tort reform has prompted several axiomatic arguments which express several caveats to our