Legislators Are Hearing From Home -- And Reading The Bill

There are signs that some members of the Illinois General Assembly who might have followed the trial lawyers pleadings to vote “yes” on a bill described by opponents as “deep pockets” bill and by a popular Springfield blogger and columnist as a “grotesque boon for plaintiffs” (his words, not ours) are wavering.

There is no doubt that support for the bill (SB 1296) in the House is less today than it was the day it was sent from the Senate to the House.

There are two reasons for that:

First, legislators are hearing from constituents who are being urged to call/write/e-mail by a large and diverse coalition of opponents whose views mean a lot more to the voters than do the views -- and greed -- of the personal injury trial lawyers.

Second, legislators -some, at least - are actually reading the bill and wondering why they are being asked to do this?

They have seen the words of revered former Representative Alan J. Greiman, now a member of the Appellate Court in Cook County, who described the intent of the current law when it was written in 1986.

These were Greiman’s words on June 30, 1986 on the floor of the Illinois House:

[J]oint and several liability … means that if you are one percent negligent, you must pay the entire judgment ... We have changed that. We have heard from ... people all across the state that we are concerned that we are minimally liable, five, 10 percent liable, 15 percent liable, and we’re stuck for the whole thing. So we have said that there should be a threshold. If you are twenty-five percent liable, you are not so much involved with causing the accident … that you should respond in damages for the entire amount. But you are less than twenty-five percent, they you should pay only your share … The minimally liable are no longer liable for more than their share.

84th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, June 30, 1986 at p. 8-9.

Then why, some legislators are asking, are the trial lawyers asking for such a radical change, a change that would allow them to focus on the most wealthy defendants, rather than the most responsible? Why go after the “minimally liable,” as former Rep. Greiman said 21 years ago?

The answer is obvious and that’s why many legislators who frequently give the trial lawyers the benefit of the doubt are shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

There is no doubt there has been a lot of contact between constituents and legislators on this issue.

Much of it has been generated by the many organizations and interests - - such as the ICJL - that oppose the bill. When legislators hear from constituents - not from one or two but from 50 or 100 or 500, they usually pay some attention and will at least look at the bill in question.

And that is what has been turning the tide against SB 1296.

Legislators read it and realize that it does what the opponents say it does and they understand why it has been referred to as the “deep pockets” bill.

Trial lawyer allies still have the numbers to win in the Illinois House so this fight is still in its early stages -- the bill has not yet been sent to the House Judiciary Committee but that could happen this week and a hearing could be held next week.

Some trial lawyer allies have talked about possible amendments to reduce some of the opposition -- "carving out" some of the interests or institutions that are opposed right now because they are severely impacted.

They are using every available tactic to neutralize the growing opposition. Bloggers -- some obviously trial lawyer staff members or close allies -- have been planting lies on the internet, including on Rich Miller's popular Capitol Fax Blog.

The fate of SB 1296 will be played out over the next four to six weeks and opposition forces need to continue the fight -- but other dark clouds loom on the horizon as several other trial lawyer pet projects await in the wings. HB 1798, which creates a new category of non-economic damages for grief and suffering in wrongful death cases. HB 1798 is on final passage stage in the House and could be called at any time.

Opponents of SB 1296 need to look at this bill too. Unfortunately, there are a few others out there.

Cross-posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.

Technorati Tags: SB 1296, Illinois legislature, trial lawyer, tort reform, Illinois Civil Justice League