Well, there needs to be some way to hold businesses accountable when they do cause harm. This can either be accomplished through regulations, where the government fines and punishes businesses that cause harm, or through torts, where harmed individuals can have their case heard in court. The lobby may be right if they are suggesting that in Illinois they are disproportionately subject to both, but as a keen observer, I'd say that it would be much better off if we relied on tort more than regulation, as regulations hurt all businesses, while torts affect only those getting sued, presumably because of some possibility of guilt (else the case would be thrown out summarily by our outstanding judges, no?)
So-Called "Austin Mayor"
· 3 years ago
It seems that this crew isn't going to stop until they have made Illinois as "business friendly" as Mississippi and South Dakota.
Just take a drive through one of those states and count the good jobs. You won't need the fingers on both hands
Slash
· 3 years ago
Nothing like watching the 700 pound gorillas of the bureaucracy take one another....it is a titanic bout to see who *really* gets to lord over all of us.
And if you submit to their lordship, you are going to get everything you deserve.
Who is right? The trial lawyers? The medical industry? The government? Who knows?
Either way, you are on the losing end of the stick. The sooner you realize this and make the necessary adjustments, the more freedom you are going to have. The only one that profits from that is you...which is why they don't want you to have it.
Just say 'no' to all of them.
Harvey Birdman
· 3 years ago
After all that drummed-up hullaballoo about madison County being the judicial hellhole, the lobby rammed thru their "reforms" and promptly forgot about the whole thing. The facts behind their statistics show the whole thing was a put-up job from the beginning, and the electorate all fell for it.
Downstate Republican
· 3 years ago
Here in the hinterlands - Democratic Judges are scared because of the backlash against Illinois' legal reputation. Even they have nothing to do with the large verdits, some voters are contemplating painting them with a broad brush.
Suddenly, the easy task of retention, has become frightening. Securing the necessary 60% vote for retention seems a lot tougher. Any campaign mounted against a sitting judge has a better than even chance of being successful.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
The U.S. Chamber is right. We should issue a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings, past and future, by any business. Cave-ins like the one in West Virginia are simply the cost of progress, and any effort by the courts or regulators to constrain business to protect the safety of workers, consumers or the general public comes with a cost. And since I don't know anybody in West Virginia, I'll take the cheap coal.
Let's face it: holding people accountable is bad for business.
Randall Sherman
· 3 years ago
I'm just wondering if Ms. Rickard and her fellow apologists for the medical community would rather have irate citizens string up a few of the worst doctors up by a streetlight in Springfield, Chicago or some other Illinois community? I do NOT condone such violence, but I would not be shocked if some ugly incident were to take place in the future if further limits on medical liability were to be shoved down our throats.
grand old partisan
· 3 years ago
Austin Mayor – I’ll give you Mississippi, but I don’t understand why you would site South Dakota……it’s unemployment rate is 1.3% lower than Illinois. Not bad for a landlocked, plains state.
Yellow Dog, nice try.
Have you even taken the time to see what reforms the Chamber is pushing, or have you just assumed that since they are an organization of evil, heartless capitalists they MUST be in favor of removing any and all accountability?
Let’s talk venue shopping. It may be rhetorical hyperbole to call Madison County a “hellhole,†but let’s face it…..trial lawyers aren’t filing class action suits there because they want to sightsee after court gets out. And they usually aren’t filing there because a majority, or even plurality, of the plaintiff class resides there. So why are they filing there? Could it be because they feels their cases will have the best shot at winning in that jurisdiction, based on an analysis of verdicts in similar cases? This is a very real abuse of our state’s tort system by lawyers who are trying to line their own pockets. (Remember, the higher they can jack up those non-economic damages, the more money they will make for themselves and their firms. In other words, they are fighting against venue shopping because it is bad for their business, not because it is actually a fair or sensible component of the tort system)
How is favoring reforms that would place lawsuits in more appropriate jurisdictions based on the geographic composition of the plaintiff class creating a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings?
If you want to keep spouting ATLA talking points, go ahead. If you want to have a debate about the actual facts and issues, bring it on.
Marie Carnes
· 3 years ago
This press release came out just this week? Because, that lawsuit abuse spiel, and much of the paragraph in quotes, was used in a radio ad campaign this past fall in Springfield.
This falls into the legal doctrine of "give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."
Ed Murnane
· 3 years ago
If a state has a problem with (1) doctors leaving because of high malpractice insurance rates and (2) a terrible economic and job environment because of rampant litigation against businesses, doesn't it make sense to try to solve BOTH problems? Some of the simplistic comments here suggest that fixing your health issues means you'll have access to a job. It doesn't work that way.
Ken Lay
· 3 years ago
Corporate America is not going to be happy until they completely control Illinois. Its all about greed, greed and more greed.
ONEMANCANMAKEADIFFERENCE
· 3 years ago
Lawsuit reform would violate the free speech in the constitution; the First Amendment
You cannot prohibit someone from filing a legal claim with the courts if he or she feels that they have experienced an injustice or a violation of law.
The only way to find out and weed out the frivolous suits, is to allow a person to litigate and allow the courts to decide whether the suit has merit or should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted". The court use this legality now to weed out lawsuits. In particular pro se lawsuits.
If we're supposed to be a free country why enfrenge on others rights to seek justice from the courts or pre-judge whether or not a person has a claim prior to him or her litigating.
Lawsuit reform would cause Civil Rights leaders to come to the forefront to fight against such reforms.
After all, Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders paved the way for us to be free and enabled us to be able to "petition the gov't for a redress of grievances" in the courts.
If you start taking these rights away we will no longer be a free country.
For example, the smoking ban in the City of Chicago. Aren't we supposed to be a free country? How can the gov't tell you where you can and cannot smoke on the streets in a public arena.
"You have to be 15 feet away from the building". What if the entire neighborhood is surrounded by buildings, then where is a person allowed to smoke?
I must clarify that I don't take issue on smoking itself. That's personal, but when the gov't tries to regulate such laws and free speech, it slowly but surely diminishes our rights to freedom and to remain a free country.
Hon. John Fritchey
· 3 years ago
Told you so.
ONEMANCANMAKEADIFFERENCE
· 3 years ago
Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jan 20, 06 @ 8:41 am: "Let’s face it: holding people accountable is bad for business".
I disagree YDD, the only way to obtain justice is to hold those accountable who intentionally violated laws and others civil rights.
Holding people accountable by initiating a legal action whether administrative or judicial is the only way to obtain justice when you been a victims of an injustice.
For example, a state employee blows the whistle. In retaliation he or she is fired. They then report the whistle blower information and the retaliatory discharge to every State Constitutional Officer and involved State Officials to inform them of the whistleblower information and the retaliatory discharge for whistle blowing. They are ignored by each constitutional officer and state official they approached.
At this point the only way to obtain justice for the retaliatory discharge and expose the whistle blower information with intent to get the gov't to investigate, is to file a judicial complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction.
In other words, when the administrative process fails, the judicial process can force the administrative process accordingly.
As such, there are two methods to ensuring accountablity:
1. Administrative processes-"petition the gov't for a redress of greivances" 2. Judicial processes-"petition the court of competent jurisdiction for a redress of grievances.
grand old partisan
· 3 years ago
Rep. Fritchey, funny, very funny indeed.
My question to you is: would you (and if no, why not) support a measure that would restrict the very real problem of trial lawyers selecting venues for their class action suits based not on a consideration of where the wrong occured to a substantial percentage of the plaintiff class, but rather on a consideration of where the verdict might come with a higher pay day for themselves? If your problem is with the specific measures in this solution, what would your alternative proposal be to stem the tide of this real (if, at times, occasionally overstated) abuse of our legal system?
Would you support measures to make sure that member of class action suits involving asbestos are actually affected by said asbestos? If no, why not? (again, if you problem is with the specific solution, what is your alternate proposal to help reach this - what I would assume would be - universaly desired goal?)
We can go through the rest of the Chamber's proposals later today, but how about starting with these two?
Lincoln Lounger
· 3 years ago
Thank God somebody is trying to get something done about the legal mess created by the Democrats who gorge on campaign contributions from attorneys. There's a reason people from all over the country file their lawsuits in Madison County. That system is a hellhole, and people like SimmonsCooper are the dark lords ruling it. Illinois is lagging behind in creating jobs because business doesn't want to deal with this litigation-happy state.
anon
· 3 years ago
As opposed to the Republicans who "gorge on campaign contributions" from the corporations and chambers of commerce. Good, well thought out black and white argument Lincoln!
PrairieStater
· 3 years ago
It's my understanding that the venue reform bill would in no way close the doors to the court house for anybody. Justice will not be denied. It will, however, require that a lawsuit must have some rational connection to the jurisdiction in which it is filed. That sounds like common sense to me.
By the way ... I find it interesting that many of you malign rich "corporate America" while defending the Illinois trial laywers -- many of whom are worth hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) of dollars. Or could it be that their money is okay because it bankrolls the Democratic Party?
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
GOP,
In fact, I got an e-mail from Ed Murnane just today about continuing our previous discussions on those very issues. I'll be meeting with him soon.
There is always a place for reasonable reforms. You and I can simply, and respectfully, agree to disagree about whether what got done last year was reasonable.
All Comments
Just take a drive through one of those states and count the good jobs. You won't need the fingers on both hands
And if you submit to their lordship, you are going to get everything you deserve.
Who is right? The trial lawyers? The medical industry? The government? Who knows?
Either way, you are on the losing end of the stick. The sooner you realize this and make the necessary adjustments, the more freedom you are going to have. The only one that profits from that is you...which is why they don't want you to have it.
Just say 'no' to all of them.
Suddenly, the easy task of retention, has become frightening. Securing the necessary 60% vote for retention seems a lot tougher. Any campaign mounted against a sitting judge has a better than even chance of being successful.
Let's face it: holding people accountable is bad for business.
Yellow Dog, nice try.
Have you even taken the time to see what reforms the Chamber is pushing, or have you just assumed that since they are an organization of evil, heartless capitalists they MUST be in favor of removing any and all accountability?
Let’s talk venue shopping. It may be rhetorical hyperbole to call Madison County a “hellhole,†but let’s face it…..trial lawyers aren’t filing class action suits there because they want to sightsee after court gets out. And they usually aren’t filing there because a majority, or even plurality, of the plaintiff class resides there. So why are they filing there? Could it be because they feels their cases will have the best shot at winning in that jurisdiction, based on an analysis of verdicts in similar cases? This is a very real abuse of our state’s tort system by lawyers who are trying to line their own pockets. (Remember, the higher they can jack up those non-economic damages, the more money they will make for themselves and their firms. In other words, they are fighting against venue shopping because it is bad for their business, not because it is actually a fair or sensible component of the tort system)
How is favoring reforms that would place lawsuits in more appropriate jurisdictions based on the geographic composition of the plaintiff class creating a blanket amnesty for all wrongdoings?
If you want to keep spouting ATLA talking points, go ahead. If you want to have a debate about the actual facts and issues, bring it on.
This falls into the legal doctrine of "give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."
You cannot prohibit someone from filing a legal claim with the courts if he or she feels that they have experienced an injustice or a violation of law.
The only way to find out and weed out the frivolous suits, is to allow a person to litigate and allow the courts to decide whether the suit has merit or should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted". The court use this legality now to weed out lawsuits. In particular pro se lawsuits.
If we're supposed to be a free country why enfrenge on others rights to seek justice from the courts or pre-judge whether or not a person has a claim prior to him or her litigating.
Lawsuit reform would cause Civil Rights leaders to come to the forefront to fight against such reforms.
After all, Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders paved the way for us to be free and enabled us to be able to "petition the gov't for a redress of grievances" in the courts.
If you start taking these rights away we will no longer be a free country.
For example, the smoking ban in the City of Chicago. Aren't we supposed to be a free country? How can the gov't tell you where you can and cannot smoke on the streets in a public arena.
"You have to be 15 feet away from the building". What if the entire neighborhood is surrounded by buildings, then where is a person allowed to smoke?
I must clarify that I don't take issue on smoking itself. That's personal, but when the gov't tries to regulate such laws and free speech, it slowly but surely diminishes our rights to freedom and to remain a free country.
I disagree YDD, the only way to obtain justice is to hold those accountable who intentionally violated laws and others civil rights.
Holding people accountable by initiating a legal action whether administrative or judicial is the only way to obtain justice when you been a victims of an injustice.
For example, a state employee blows the whistle. In retaliation he or she is fired. They then report the whistle blower information and the retaliatory discharge to every State Constitutional Officer and involved State Officials to inform them of the whistleblower information and the retaliatory discharge for whistle blowing. They are ignored by each constitutional officer and state official they approached.
At this point the only way to obtain justice for the retaliatory discharge and expose the whistle blower information with intent to get the gov't to investigate, is to file a judicial complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction.
In other words, when the administrative process fails, the judicial process can force the administrative process accordingly.
As such, there are two methods to ensuring accountablity:
1. Administrative processes-"petition the gov't for a redress of greivances"
2. Judicial processes-"petition the court of competent jurisdiction for a redress of grievances.
My question to you is: would you (and if no, why not) support a measure that would restrict the very real problem of trial lawyers selecting venues for their class action suits based not on a consideration of where the wrong occured to a substantial percentage of the plaintiff class, but rather on a consideration of where the verdict might come with a higher pay day for themselves? If your problem is with the specific measures in this solution, what would your alternative proposal be to stem the tide of this real (if, at times, occasionally overstated) abuse of our legal system?
Would you support measures to make sure that member of class action suits involving asbestos are actually affected by said asbestos? If no, why not? (again, if you problem is with the specific solution, what is your alternate proposal to help reach this - what I would assume would be - universaly desired goal?)
We can go through the rest of the Chamber's proposals later today, but how about starting with these two?
By the way ... I find it interesting that many of you malign rich "corporate America" while defending the Illinois trial laywers -- many of whom are worth hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) of dollars. Or could it be that their money is okay because it bankrolls the Democratic Party?
In fact, I got an e-mail from Ed Murnane just today about continuing our previous discussions on those very issues. I'll be meeting with him soon.
There is always a place for reasonable reforms. You and I can simply, and respectfully, agree to disagree about whether what got done last year was reasonable.