|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
MY VIEW: Florida's historic lawsuit abuse reform is at risk Despite progress toward ending lawsuit abuse in Florida, our state continues to struggle against the influence of well-connected personal-injury lawyers who are working hard to ensure that Florida's courts remain havens for frivolous lawsuits. Case in point: Exactly one year ago this week consumers, taxpayers, health-care providers and small-business owners all over Florida rejoiced in the Legislature's historic repeal of the Florida's joint and several liability law. It was a grossly unfair law that allowed personal-injury lawyers to target defendants based on their ability to pay regardless of their percentage of fault in a lawsuit. Or more simply, a legal maneuver that empowered personal-injury lawyers to target whomever they deemed most likely to pay a huge award or settlement. Before the repeal of joint and several liability law, personal-injury lawyers would cast the widest net possible in order to peg their lawsuit to the person or business that had the deepest pockets. That party's actual fault in the alleged accident or harm was immaterial because the old rule allowed anyone who was even minimally responsible to be forced to pay the majority of damages. The repeal of this inherently unfair law by the Florida Legislature was an important step toward ending lawsuit abuse in Florida and, more importantly, removing the lawsuit target from the backs of all Florida consumers and small businesses. Today, however, this historic reform is under clandestine attack. Personal-injury lawyers and their lobbyists are quietly using soft-sell tactics in Tallahassee in an attempt to take advantage of the change in administration and new leadership to “fix” last year's reform bill. This “technical fix,” is the repeal of the so-called "Fabre doctrine" (HB 733, Rep. Mitch Needleman; SB 1558, Sen. Jeremy Ring), and a backdoor way to reinstate the unfair system of fault that ended with the repeal of joint and several liability. The Fabre doctrine originated in the Supreme Court in 1993 and was codified into law in 1999 and ensures that when a jury determines responsibility for damages that fault should be fairly apportioned among all responsible parties, regardless of whether they are named in the lawsuit. Repealing the Fabre doctrine would render last year's hard-fought reforms useless. Personal-injury lawyers would simply change their tactics in how they sought out the deep pockets. Instead of casting the wide net and hauling everyone even remotely associated with an injury or harm, personal-injury lawyers would simply not sue the party or parties most responsible for a wrongdoing or harm if someone of less fault, even as low as 1 percent, had more means to pay. In the end, personal-injury lawyers would be able to target the deepest pocket regardless of percentage of fault, letting those truly responsible walk away while others were forced to pay for their negligence. Adding insult to injury, the plaintiff and/or victim could even be deemed more responsible for his or her own injury than the defendant and still file a lawsuit in an attempt to win a big jury award. A vote for the “Fabre fix” would be just that - a “fix job” to fix the system once again for personal-injury lawyers. A vote for it is a vote against the common sense that prevailed last year and a vote against Florida consumers. Our legislators saw fit last year to protect Florida consumers against frivolous lawsuits that allowed personal-injury lawyers to cherry-pick defendants and force whomever they deemed most able to pay, and pay a lot, and to do so regardless of fault. We should demand that our representatives in Tallahassee uphold this important protection against lawsuit abuse and say “no” to bait-and-switch personal-injury lawyer tactics, “no” to more lawsuit abuse and “no” to the Fabre fix. |
|
|||||||||
 | |||||||||||
Home | About Us | Get the Facts | Newsroom | |||||||||||
