Tort reform cap plans go against conservative ideals, that is, personal responsibility and limited government. A true statement:

The law of tort is that if someone hurts someone else, they should make up for it. Our smallest children learn this rule along with "do unto others. ..." This is very core of the principle of personal responsibility. It's why we have a tort system.

Also true:

Government telling a jury it may not award a full measure of justice for someone harmed by another — even if the harm is proved — violates the second principle of conservatism. Government imposed limits on general damages is the antithesis of limited government. Government intervention in civil matters shifts the risk of loss from the wrongdoer to the injured at the point where caps apply. Such risk shifting and responsibility forgiving is plainly government meddling in private matters.

Does anyone else wonder at the cynicism of the so-called conservatives running the state -- and the lives of Tennesseeans -- into the ground just to aid Big Insurance and Big Business at the expense of us all?

Hail damage to the Knox County Courthouse: a metaphor for our times?

Knoxville's Stacey Campfield (R) sponsors bill to outlaw reference to the word "gay" in schools prior to ninth grade: Time to Shut Down Legislative Sideshows.

I thought Republicans were for getting government out of peoples' lives. I thought Republicans were for limited government. Well, our state Republican representative is both wasting our time and his, and he is injecting government into places where it doesn't belong.

I guess Republicans are in favor of all that getting government out of peoples' lives philosophy, until they're NOT in favor of them. What's the word for that? Oh, yeah: hypocrisy.

I've always said that mobile homes seem to be a magnet for tornadoes. Now there's statistical proof that I'm right.

"Illogithink" in the Tennessee General Assembly. Here's the takeaway:

[The Republican legislators] ran for office vowing to keep government off your backs and not to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong. But example after example keeps popping up of them doing just the opposite. Local school system control? Forget about it. They know best. The Metro Council deciding local contract requirements? The legislature is on its way to overriding that. Jury control over awarding damages? The legislature knows best, silly jurors.

Kerr recommends adjournment as the cure for "illogithink." But she's wrong there; adjorning the Legislature puts the problem off to another day, instead of solving the problem. Frankly, we Tennesseeans have to actually start paying attention to the representatives we elect, what they stand for, and whether they will serve us, or their own "illogithink" agenda.

Damage caps could lead lawyers to cherry-pick cases. Because the cost of going to trial can be very, very expensive, many lawyers are going to turn down otherwise good cases because, even if they spend, say, $100,000 of their own money to get a case to trial, the potential return is so relatively low that it makes no economic sense to take the case. So, many cases will not be pursued because the expense the defense makes one go through cannot justify even the best possible return.

This state of affairs, by the way, is exactly what Big Insurance and the chambers of commerce want. If they cannot prohibit a person from suing, they'll do the next best thing: make it so difficult, expensive and time-consuming that the lawyers can't take the case.

Can't any of these guys keep it in their pants: "Indy 500" priest accused of abuse in U.S. lawsuit. On the other hand, we shouldn't pre-judge.

Washington Post: How our cars got safer. Quick answer: "History shows that litigation and the civil justice system have served as the most consistent and powerful forces in heightening safety standards, revealing previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses and deterring manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits."

What I tell clients is this: I cannot make it part of a lawsuit to compel wrongdoers to change their behavior or how they do business. All I can do is sue them for money damages to compensate the client. However, if pursuing a lawsuit gets the wrongdoer to change its behavior to everyone's benefit, well that's all right by me.

Quote of the Day: "Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humor. He will always use it in evidence against you."

--Herbert Beerbohm Tree, British actor

The Tennessean: Tort reform bill defies principles of justice. That's why I call it rights restriction legislation.

Big verdict winners: It's not about the money. The takeaway:

State court records show that very few lawsuits in Tennessee ever go to a jury, and fewer yet end up with awards higher than the caps Gov. Bill Haslam is close to winning in the General Assembly. Last year there were 14 such trials in the state. Some people who did win awards say they didn't want the money as much as they wanted a weapon to stop actions like the ones that killed their loved ones.

When it comes to cases like defective products lawsuits or actions against businesses, the sad truth is that simply speaking sternly to the wrongdoer will not induce him to change his behavior. The only way to get their attention is to hit them in the pocket book.

Of course, the quote above shows that the whole thing is incredibly cynical from the defense side. As a colleague in the defense bar said to me recently, "No one tries big cases any more, they get settled." So, Big Insurance and the chambers of commerce may moan about the high verdicts, but the fact is that they usually will settle out any case where they think they've got serious monetary exposure. They voluntarily pay up. Because, to them, it's all about the money. It's a bean counter thing; if it's cheaper by their calculation to settle the case, they will.

Virginia's Governor vetoes bill to increase medical malpractice cap. This bill had bipartisan support, and was even favored by the Medical Society of Virginia, whose president said, "It really allows fairness but accountability for the physicians." Why can't we get that kind of legislation for Knoxville particularly and Tennessee generally?

Wouldn't want that, would we?

Here a kind of nifty graphic map showing unemployment rises from 2008 to the present. Interestingly, try as I might, I couldn't find Knox County. I found Roane, Sevier, Jefferson and Cocke Counties, but no Knox.

I guess that means we haven't had any unemployment increases here.

Memphis Commercial Appeal: New law weakens consumer protection.

WARNING: Banks want to reduce the number of foreclosure notices to make it easier for them to foreclose on property. So, where they now have to publish three notices, they want to reduce it to ONE notice. If you happen to miss the notice, you could have your property foreclosed out from under you.

Among the legislators supporting the bill: The House Democratic Leader, a bank executive who is also the president of the Tennessee Banking Association. No conflict of interest there, no sir! Jeez.

Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Bill to cap damages not based on reality. But it'll be a reality unless Tennessee citizens wake up and smell the spoiled milk coming out of Nashville in the form of the Civil [In]justice Act of 2011. Here's the takeaway from this op-ed:

Ultimately, the question comes down to whether a jury of peers is competent enough to assess damage for a legitimate malpractice claim and award a proper amount. Or should elected officials determine an arbitrary amount that allows for no wiggle room in cases where larger amounts can be and should be awarded?

In this case of tort reform and the proposed capping of medical malpractice lawsuit awards, the fix appears worse than the problem.

A vote for this legislation is a vote of no confidence in the judgment of the Tennessee citizens who sit on juries, and have done so for the past 214 years.

Congressman Jimmy Duncan to Tea Partiers (and everyone else): Don't forget the 3rd through 9th amendments, either. That includes the 7th amendment right to a jury trial:

I have faith in the people - I have faith in the jury system. It's one of the most important elements of our freedom, and it was so recognized in the Constitution, was felt to be so important, it was specifically put into the Constitution in the 7th Amendment. And I'll tell you, it's a very dangerous thing to take away rights like that from the people... In fact, I can tell you, you have better regulation by juries than you have by federal government regulators - it's more effective.

RIP Roger Nichols. As a music engineer and producer, his contributions to the music world, just as Steely Dan's engineer, were incomparable. Here's a nice Wikipedia bio.

Tennessee Association for Justice:

A bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature would specifically allow hospitals and doctors to provide negligent medical care in Emergency Rooms in Tennessee. Unless a patient could prove gross negligence, a standard just short of criminal behavior, there would be no accountability or protection. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Glen Casada and Sen. Jack Johnson, both from College Grove.

“For example, if you go to the ER with chest pains and the doctor carelessly misdiagnoses you with bronchitis and you go home and have a massive heart attack and die, under the proposed legislation there would be no recourse for this kind of sloppiness,” stated Phillip Miller, President, Tennessee Association for Justice. “In effect, a doctor would have no responsibility for careless errors that could cost
you your life.”

The current standard for medical negligence already affords protections to ER doctors. ER doctors are protected as long as they deliver care consistent with standards set by their peers—other ER doctors. Only if they fail to meet those standards and harm a patient will they rightfully be held accountable under the present law.

The immunity goes one step further and will also cover doctors in surgery and the OB unit if the patient is admitted through the ER. This means a patient who goes to the ER will have very little protection from negligence during their entire hospital stay.

This legislation has an unfair impact on women, children and low-income families since they are more likely to use the ER. Kids in sports go to the ER for injuries, pregnant women often go to the ER when they are in labor, and the elderly frequently rely on the ER for respiratory illnesses. These vulnerable citizens would be without any protection when seeking needed medical care.

If passed, HR HB 174/SB 360 would also place a financial burden on the taxpayers. If recipients of TennCare, Medicare and the uninsured are harmed due to carelessness in the ER, Tennesseans will end up paying the bill for a person’s medical care and treatment resulting from the doctor’s careless error. Medical errors cost the Nation approximately $37.6 billion per year, and this legislation would only add to that cost.

“Should a law be passed allowing ER doctors to commit negligent acts on patients in Tennessee? That’s exactly what this bill does.” said Miller. “With 98,000 people dying each year from medical errors, clearly the answer is NO. The focus should be on improving the quality of care – not on lobbyists seeking to pass a license to harm patients.”

More good news. Our (not so) wonderful governor wants to "deliver a knockout blow" to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, too. And, surprise, surprise: this bill would prohibit you from being able to sue your insurance company under the Consumer Protection Act (or most other laws) for unfair or deceptive practices if it fails to protect you properly.

This law has been in effect for 34 years. what possible reason -- other than the greed of Big Business and Big Insurance could be behind the sudden push to destroy this vital consumer law?