High Court Right in 'Tort Reform' Decision

Now that the Illinois Supreme Court has declared the so-called "tort reform" legislation unconstitutional, it is disheartening to hear representatives from big business talk as though they were "losers" in the court's action. When justice prevails, there are no winners and losers.

Everyone in the state has benefitted. What every consumer in this state has gained is the return to a fair civil justice system that works for everyone. That state's highest court reached the right decision for the right reasons. A majority of the court-Republicans and Democrats alike, with merely one dissent-agreed that the law failed to equally protect everyone's rights.

Critics pointed out that the key measure in the law, the cap on non-economic damages, is difficult to quantify; but that doesn't mean that damages such as pain and suffering are worth nothing at all. Nor is it worth, as the court pointed out, an arbitrary figure such as $500,000, as the law had provided.

Why should the state Legislature be allowed to set a value on the lives of the seven children killed in Fox River Grove in a school bus accident just six months after this controversial law took effect? The law had unfairly allowed those responsible for negligently causing injury and death to escape financial accountability for their actions.

And say what they will, the medical, pharmaceutical, corporate and municipal interests who hastily crafted the short-sighted legislation in 1995 did just that. Representatives from major contributors to the Illinois Civil Justice League, an organization formed to further the interests of big business, sat at a closed meeting in Springfield bandying about figures ranging from $250,000 to $750,000 before finally compromising at $500,000 for reasons totally unrelated to any legitimate public interest. In fact, the entire piece of legislation is merely one large wish list that was put together by major contributors to that league, a collection of special interests.

Through intense lobbying, the league easily persuaded previously committed Republican legislators to adopt the cap and several other measures that nullified well-established law in this state in what was touted as the most comprehensive changes ever adopted by a state legislature anywhere.

Rep. Lee Daniels (R-Elmhurst) promised during the 1994 state elections that it would become a top priority. The Wrongdoer Protection Act was put on a fast-track, passing just months into the new Republican-controlled session with no time for a nay-sayer to be heard and completely revamping the civil justice system that had been in place for decades.

The cries from busloads of injured victims fell on deaf ears, despite their traveling to the state's capital in a desperate attempt to have their elected officials hear of the law's stripping them of their precious rights.

Equally serious is the law's usurping the jury's well-founded authority to determine the issue of damages in a personal injury or wrongful death case.

The jury represents a community's view of what is deemed fair and equitable. But even in the rare case of a jury "gone wild," the civil justice system already had a number of built-in checks and balances, including the power of the trial judge to reduce the amount, should it smack of unreasonableness.

And unlike the Legislature that passed the lengthy bill with virtually no discussion or amendments in both chambers, Justice Mary Ann McMorrow penned a well-thought-out opinion in what is considered the longest treatise to come from the Illinois Supreme Court. Justice McMorrow pointed out that it is the catastrophically injured who are targeted to be hurt the most through the special interest legislation while financially protecting the negligent responsible for the harm.

We live in a complex society where various goals may appear to be at odds. The Illinois Supreme Court, though, has reconciled those conflicts, mindful of its mission to uphold the state's constitution with fairness and justice.

But almost immediately, with the stated goal of retribution, the head of the Civil Justice League has targeted the judiciary in future elections through its "hit list" of political contributions.

As a former president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, I have seen trial lawyers aggressively fight the reform legislation both through lobbying and political activism on behalf of their clients. And while it is true that trial lawyers are active in the political arena, they have not been proactive in legislatively expanding victims' rights.

Certainly, all intellectually honest trial lawyers see ways to improve the civil justice system to make it more efficient; and they should work toward that end.

But if any changes are to be made, they should be done in an atmosphere of cooperation, with all sides of the issue represented so that the rights of everyone are assured. For now, the anecdotes on which "tort reformers" based their hyperbolic arguments should stop, and perhaps the focus can turn to the facts.