How Over the Top is the ICJL?
Backed by the insurance industry and out-of-state big business interests, the Illinois Civil Justice League continues it's hard campaign to try to justify its continued existence. As I listen to their "the sky is falling" rhetoric, I'm reminded of a recent interview with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who said interest groups do a disservice to themselves by adopting extreme positions and over-the-top rhetoric, mainly in an attempt to try to justify their existence and keep the cash flowing in from their extreme backers. Luntz was talking about groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but he could have just as easily been talking about the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL).
Enter Senate Bill 1296. According to the ICJL, SB 1296:
would establish that if multiple parties are responsible for causing an injury or loss, it makes no difference which of the multiple parties is most responsible. It will be the party with the "deepest pockets" or most money who pays. It doesn't matter who is mostly at fault, it matters who has the most money.
The insurance companies backing the ICJL are the same guys who claimed that requiring insurance companies to cover preventative services like mammograms would drive up the cost of health care, so I don't take anything they say at face value. So, I read the bill. Here's what SB 1296 actually says. All that it says:
The apportionment of fault under this Section only applies to the parties still remaining in the case at the time of the final determination by the trier of fact. It does not apply to the defendants or third party defendants that have been dismissed for any reason, including settlement.
In other words, a jury can't find someone guilty -- apportion blame and demand payment for damages from them -- if they are no longer on trial because they've been dismissed from the case or have already settled.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I took several classes on democracy in college and consider myself fairly well versed on the democratic ideals of justice. And, for the life of me, I can't understand how the ICJL can argue that a jury should be able to find someone guilty and sentence them if that person is not on trial because they've been dismissed from the case. Somewhere tucked away inside all of our Constitutional Rights regarding due process, I think we're entitled to know that we're on trial and be represented by counsel before a jury finds us guilty.
I also can't understand how the ICJL can argue that a jury can find someone guilty for something and demand restitution, when that individual has essentially already pleaded guilty and accepted punishment. Don't we call that "double jeopardy"?
Speaking of PETA
The ICJL finds itself making some very strange bedfellows in it's opposition to House Bill 1798 as well, which amends the Wrongful Death Act to hold murderers, drunk drivers, and others who unlawfully take a life accountable for the grief and sorrow they've caused under Illinois' civil laws. The ICJL believes that if you take a life, you should only be liable for the victim's lost wages and medical expenses (if they lived that long), so that killing a minor, a senior citizen, or a poor person will cost you nothing.
Here, I do have some expertise. My best friend was murdered when we were only 17 years old. The State's Attorney struck a plea deal with the two guys who broke into his house and stabbed him to death for Second Degree Murder, 14 years. The Ringleader was out in seven, and later had his record expunged by Gov. Ryan. Because of Illinois' arcane Wrongful Death Act, his family received no restitution for the lifetime of pain they got, including returning home day after day to the scene of their own son's murder. I got to be a pallbearer my senior year of high school.
I mentioned PETA earlier, and ironically under Illinois law, you are entitled to restitution for grief and suffering if someone kills your pet. I humbly submit that people deserve at least the same consideration as animals.
(before the PETA folks freak out on me, the bassethound with the knife in his head is a Halloween costume, and I love dogs. In fact, I put PETA a step above the ICJL.)
21 comments:
Great Post,YDD!
"interest groups do a disservice to themselves by adopting extreme positions and over-the-top rhetoric"
see: Jill Stanek, crazy as a loon.
another sharp post, YDD. well done.
I never did understand how you can be anti-abortion and oppose access to birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies -- and neither do most pro-lifers.
Similarly, I don't understand how you can call yourself a "civil justice" group and oppose holding drunk drivers, murderers and others who unlawfully take a life accountable. I don't think many business owners whom the ICJL purports to represent -- all of whom have families -- get that either.
YDD,
I knew a huge Pro Life guy that was so frustrated by Roe V. Wade that he beat his wife on a regular basis.
Likewise the most strident Pro Choice advocates seem to be the people who view abortion as a cosmetic.
Go Figure.
YDD:
How would you apportion fault in this REAL case, as described by the Belleville News-Democrat?
The estate of a man killed by a drunken driver in Jersey County is suing the man's own father, a tow truck driver who witnessed the wreck.
Illinois State Police have said Ricky Smith, of Jerseyville, was about to pull his son's car from a ditch Dec. 13 along Illinois 109, about five miles south of Jerseyville, when a Ford Taurus slammed into his tow truck. The car then hit Smith's 28-year-old son, Keith Smith.
Keith Smith, also of Jerseyville, died at the scene.
Authorities have said Ricky Smith -- a 54-year-old tow truck driver -- had parked his truck in the road's northbound lanes with its emergency lights on, the front of the truck facing south. Keith Smith had called his father to help get his vehicle out of the ditch, investigators said.
The driver of the car, Gordon Barksdale, 47, of Golden Eagle in Calhoun County, pleaded guilty last month to aggravated drunken driving resulting in death and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Barksdale was convicted in 2002 of driving drunk with a revoked license in Calhoun County and was sentenced to one year in prison. He also had been convicted of driving with a revoked license in 2001 in Macoupin County, court records show.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in Madison County by the mother of Keith Smith's daughter and a co-administrator of the estate, alleges that Ricky Smith did not call police before deciding to tow his son's car, and that he negligently failed to warn other drivers that his truck was on the road.
The lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages from Barksdale and Len's Towing, as well as from Wal-Mart for selling Barksdale the alcohol that caused him to be drunk.
Let's move forward, supposing the SB 1296 is now the law of the land. What if the father settles? What if the drunk driver doesn't have insurance? Should the law be that we take any reference to them out of the case?
Should the Tow Truck company be on the hook for the full damages? Should Wal-Mart be liable for 100 percent?
What if both Smith and Barksdale's insurance companies cover at $300,000 each via settlements? Shouldn't a jury get to hear that the plaintiff has already received $600,000 in the case?
I thought our system of justice is built around "the administering of deserved punishment or reward."
SB 1296 destroys any sense of the word "deserved" in that definition. Shouldn't a judge or jury be fully informed when making decisions in complicated cases?
Before YDD finishes casting stones, perhaps he should play juror in this case.
Never mind that this case involves people from Jersey and Calhoun counties and an accident that occurred in Jersey County, but was somehow filed in (you guessed it) Madison County. I'm sure a mere suggestion that this case is a better fit to be heard in Jersey County would be an "over the top" statement.
when the trial lawyers start paying, YDD starts caring.
Who is Yellow Dog?
How has the ICJL "oppose[d] holding drunk drivers, murderers and others who unlawfully take a life accountable"?
I think you may be off-base here, Yellow Dog.
A Patriot - anonymous, A Patriot.
"In other words, a jury can't find someone guilty -- apportion blame and demand payment for damages from them -- if they are no longer on trial because they've been dismissed from the case or have already settled."
- Party A is 95% responsible. Party B is 5% responsible. Party A settles. Party B does not. Party B is appropirated 100% of the fault and responsible for ALL the payment. Injustice is served.
"Now, I'm no lawyer..."
- Funny, you sound just like a trial lawyer.
Ed Murnane, please stop logging in as "Anonymous."
Ed Murnane 1:23 -- I read about the story in the paper, and was surprised to hear that family members were suing each other. Then I read between the lines that this is someone's ex-wife.
Unlike you, I try not to avoid rendering a verdict in cases in which I haven't heard all of the facts. That's how our justice system is supposed to work. You folks over at the Illinois Civil Justice League should try to remember that.
As for whether or not justice would be better served if juries were informed about other settlements, I'm not so sure. First, I don't know how you can consider it relevant at trial, which is why no one is allowed to bring it up. Secondly, I can think of many cases where it would hurt the remaining defendants, not help them.
Consider for example four business partners who are on trial. Two partners decide to settle for $250,000 each. I think that the jury would be awfully tempted to say that the two remaining partners should also pony up $250,000, "just to be fair", regardless of the facts. When people are issuing verdicts regardless of the facts, that doesn't seem like justice to me.
Finally, as I understand it Ed Murnane 2:26, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, rather than telling the jury that some parties settled, under current law any settlements awarded are automatically deducted from the initial jury award to determine the net verdict that must be paid by the remaining defendants. So, Party B is not responsible for ALL the payment, as you wrongly stated.
Ed Murnane 1:22 and 1:44 -- Maybe when someone close to you is murdered, killed in a drunk driving accident, or dismembered in an industrial accident caused by someone's negligence, you'll care too. The fact is that the ICJL's position is that killers shouldn't be required to make restitution for the pain and suffering caused to surviving family members -- there's no other way to read the bill.
Ironically, if that individual were merely maimed for life and left in a wheel chair, they would be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. So, the current law actually rewards wrongdoers for killing someone, instead of just leaving them for dead.
YDD:
If you had heard the debate on this bill, you would know that it's the sponsor's intent to see plaintiffs get 100% compensated. This makes relevent the fact that (1) others had contributed to that fault and (2) others have already compensated for their share of that fault.
If we are to assume that the bill sponsor is sincere about his intention to compensate the plaintiff wholly, then shouldn't those who oppose the bill be treated sincerely in that they disagree about the bill's intended effect?
Doesn't the bill's language have the effect of nullifying the deduction of previous settlements? Doesn't the bill say "apportionment of fault under this Section only applies to the parties still remaining in the case"?
So Party B (in your example), could still be liable for 100% of fault and pay 100% of damages, even if Party A has paid out 50% of damages to the plaintiff prior to trial via settlement. Meaning the plaintiff gets compensated 150%. That's not justice.
The proponents in the debate on the Senate floor also mentioned that they hoped these changes would "encourage settlements". Isn't the point of the system to determine who's at fault, and then expedite compensation? How does SB 1296 achieve that goal?
SB 1296 does nothing but breakdown the process of apportioning fault and put further pressure on defendants to settle, regardless of whether or not they were originally at fault. It speeds compensation, but it does not speed justice.
That creates a system like the pre-2004 asbestos "rocket docket" in Madison County, where plaintiffs attorneys pressured every defendant into settlements so they could avoid being the last defendant forced to go to trial. That certainly wasn't justice, and even other trial lawyers (Morris Chapman) agreed it wasn't.
In my earlier post, I didn't "render a verdict" in the case, I just asked how you would theoretically apportion fault. It's obvious that the accident was caused by the drunk driver. But what happens when the drunk driver doesn't have insurance? Do you shift the burden to other "deeper pocket" parties, even though they share only a tiny fraction of the blame?
I'm not Ed Murnane, by the way. But I don't think your given name is Yellow Dog, so leave the insults about anonymity at the door. Your rhetoric reminds me of the trial-lawyer-funded pawns from the med mal debate in 2005.
Vicious.
I like it YDD.
Ed Murnane 6:19 -- you are incorrect in stating that the bill nullifies the deduction of previous settlements. The bill is only two sentences long, the entire language is posted above, and I suggest you take five minutes (or as long as you need) to actually read the bill.
P.S. What I call rendering a verdict, you call "apportioning blame". It means the same thing, so please stop parsing phrases.
I may have some pre-conceived ideas about who's to blame in this case, but since I haven't heard all of the evidence, I can't really say.
Where was the tow truck parked? Was it completely of the roadway? Partially on it? Had the tow truck operator been drinking as well? Is he required by state law to notify the police of an accident as a condition of his licensure?
I hope you can see how the answers to these questions -- and many that we haven't even thought of -- might alter some of the preconceived notions about the tow truck operator's culpability.
Yes, my gut is to solely blame the drunk driver too, although if video surveillance footage from Wal-Mart shows the drunk driver was obviously plowed when they sold him the beer in question, I think I might hold them partly to blame as well.
This is why we have trials.
And I promise to stop referring to you as Ed Murnane as soon as you take the three seconds needed to log in and post under some name.
YDD-
You admit to not being a lawyer, perhaps that's why you are missing what lawyers are seeing here. What "Ed" posted is closer to a correct legal analysis.
You have to read the statute that the bill would alter in order to get there, however. The way the statute works now, when a person sues multiple defendants, the jury says, ok, who is most at fault here?
Tortfeasor A 10%
Tortfeasor B 75%
Tortfeasor C 15%
How much in damages? $1 mil.
So A gets to pay 100k
B gets to pay 750k
C gets to pay 150k
Now lets suppose B has already settled for $750k. The apportionment still applies to B, and that means that C and A get to pay $150k and $100k respectively.
Under the rewrite, the apportionment only applies to those still left in the case, that means, the jury ignores tortfeasor B. Pretend he never existed for purposes of apportionment.
Now you get to apportion fault between C and A.
As a result, A is 40% at fault
C is 60% at fault
Therefore, A gets to pay $400k
and C gets to pay $600k.
Still think it's fair?
Hoosier Daddy,
Under the Compensation Act, Tortfeasor A, and Tortfeason c receive a 100% credit for the settlement by Tortfeasor B, so under your scenario with a $1 million verdict, Tortfeasor A, would be 40% liable for 250K, which comes to $100k, and Tortfeasor C, would be 60% percent liable for 250K which comes to $150k.
So, I can't speak for YDD, but it sounds pretty fair to me.
HoosierDaddy -
Sounds like anonymous 3:25 is a lawyer, and he agrees with my reading of the bill. It doesn't affect one bit the fact that the defendants receive a 100% of any settlements against the damages they must pay under the verdict.
Again, I go back to my initial point: people who aren't on trial shouldn't appear on the jury verdict form for apportionment of blame.
I'm sorry to disappoint Yellow Dog Democrat. I have not written anything for this thread. I'm not afraid to admit who I am when I do make a comment, but have not seen this thread until now. Thanks to those who alerted me to it.
Some interesting comments; lots of mis-understanding.
Ed -
Thanks for joining the debate. I didn't know what else to call these folks parroting your talking points, and hope they'll stop logging in as Anonymous.
As for your goal of creating a healthy business climate in Illinois, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you think would be worse: maintaining the existing practice of excluding those no longer on trial from jury verdict forms, or the Governor's latest version of the Gross Receipts Tax.
It seems to me that the GRT will be bad for business, especially now that the Governor has upped his tax rate and the total tax burden on businesses.
Do you think that ensuring that folks are entitled to their day in court in Illinois and full restitution for all damages caused by negligent parties could ever cost us $7.6 billion a year?
I don't get it....YDD repeatedly criticizes people for logging in as "anonymous" ... and then continues to use the name "Yellow Dog Democrat." Now, either he is a complete hypocrite, or his birth name is, in fact, Yello Dog Democrat. Which is it, YDD? Or are you, as your name states, Yellow?
Post a Comment