Understanding Business (12th Edition) Edit edition

This problem has been solved:

…

Tort is any unlawful act that can cause injury to a person or his/her property or reputation.

Any person or organization that intentionally or negligibly acts to cause injury of any kind must provide compensation, remedies or award to the person who is injured, as per the tort law. To get the compensation, reward or remedy, the injured must successfully establish in court that the defendants’ action is liable for his/her injury.

Tort reform refers to changes that have been brought to the tort law. The tort reform in different states brought some restrictions in the tort law to prevent the abuse of the law and the huge amount of financial damage to the economy. The tort reform has set a limit for the damages to be paid and the time from the time of injury within which the tort suit has to be brought.

The supporters of it argued that,

• It’ll cut down the number of pointless lawsuit and will save court hour.

• It’ll protect the manufacturers, physicians and other people and businesses from excessive economical loss.

But, critics say,

• The malpractices by businesses and professional will not reduce if they found that the malpractice is more profitable than making a small payment to the injured. Hence, the withdrawal of punitive damage (i.e. excessive payment for wrong doing) will affect the public welfare.

The supporter of the tort reform argues for the plaintiff to pay damage if they lose the case. This argument is justified if it is established in the court that the plaintiff’s motif is to defame the defendant (an organization or person), or the attempt is to claim undue advantage of the tort law.

But, if that is not established and it is evident that the plaintiff lost the case because of loss of proof or his/her appeal after a certain period of time i.e. mentioned in the tort reform, then asking for pay damage to the plaintiff is not justified.