Tort reform has not resulted in much change within the American system of law. A primary problem is that as appeals to lower court decisions about the serviceability of tort reform legislation have made their way to courts of appeal, all or part of tort reform legislation is being struck down. This is mainly because courts wish to preserve "the right to a jury trial for common-law torts without limitation" (Finzen, Haley, & Shaw, 1998). The article appearing in the February 16, 1998 issue of The National Law Journal, entitled "Illinois high court latest to nix reform law," goes a long way towards framing the difficulties inherent in tort law. It seems that while allowing juries the freedom to find for huge damages may seem ludicrous, it is difficult to sidestep the constitutionality of civil tort findings.
It is commonly said that the civil action for damages aims at compensation, as opposed to the criminal prosecution which aims at punishment. The number of civil law suits seeking recovery for tort claims, and the amount of damages awarded in these law suits, dramatically increased during the past three decades. Broad social and political attitudes have fueled this legal trend. Tort recovery was thought to provide an incentive for the manufacture of safe goods, and to provide consumers with full redress for injuries that were caused by defective products and practices (The current tort climate, 1996).
For some time, however, many legal scholars have asserted that the legal trend expanding claimants' rights to recover damages in tort litigation is counter-productive. Businesses have argued that product innovation is being discouraged, that manufacturers outside of the U.S. are avoiding the American market, and that the costs that are being passed along to consumers are too high and make American products uncompetitive in the global market (The current tort climate, 1996).
In addition, health care providers have lo...