Those same laws in 1970s, well, provided are multiple examples including Firestone 500 and Beverly Hills Supper Club. Did tort laws change? No. What changed?

Tort reform believes we can legislate 'fair' by restricting lawyers. Yes laws could change. For example empower logical members of a jury at the expense of emotional ones. Fill a jury room with facts. Today a jury room is full only of perceptions found inside each brain. That is perfect for those who think emotionally. That is a recipe for unfair.

So where do restrictions on lawyers solve this problem? Where is this reform that would solve 'unfair'? Where are the specific examples? All I see are 'blame the lawyer' posts. Any attempt to restrict lawyers does not solve this obvious problem.

Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing.

I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well.

And if that known award can be budgeted for, a corporation can skimp on the safety!

I agree 100% - that point was made earlier and it still holds true. Although it seems that those who have the most to lose (lawyers) are the only ones against reform. Just an observation.

And the ones who have the most to gain (corporations that make potentially dangerous products) are the only ones for reform. Just an observation.

Very good point - begs the question - Where does that leave the rest of us?

How do you have a solution without first defining the problem? Do you also fix computers by assuming and then installing more fans? Do you see snow and therefore know 4 wheel drive is safer? Do you know a hurricane will not strike because previous predictions did not occur? Do you run stop signs because you did so previously and no one died? Do you "tort reform" using same logic?

Each example has a common factor. No need to read further if you understand such basics. If not, then continue reading.

Where is a paragraph or long and detailed definition of the problem? How does one cure symptoms and not first define a problem? If you don't blame lawyers, then do you blame juries or judge? Or is problem solved by curing symptoms? Yesman065 - repeated posts and you still have not even defined a problem.

From junior high school science: first a hypothesis that is consistent with current known reality. You did not do that. Then provide experimental evidence. You did not do that either. Instead you arbitrarily assume jury verdicts are too high (without doing what you were taught to define a fact). Even then you make assumptions by violating these basic concepts. Why is speculation (jury verdicts are too high) automatically a fact? Simple principles necessary to establish a fact are violated. Then you follow that speculation by 'curing symptoms'.

With safer products than we would otherwise have that cost more money* than they otherwise would.

*not counting any increase in medical or other costs resulting from defects

I did not start this post nor did I bring up the subject of Tort Reform - You did. I simply stated my opinion. I believe in an earlier post I asked you to define the problem. All you have done is assess blame and get defensive. Just like anything in life our system is not perfect and the amounts awarded in many cases are not representative of the "damages incurred." Unlike you, I am not trying to blame anyone.

Please don't lecture me on the scientific method of problem solving. I am well aware of it, thank you.
It seems to me that you have no real defense to some sort of systemic reform and are now trying to dodge the issue with irrelevancies and disparaging remarks.

Now lets try this like adults. You tell me:
Is there a problem with the tort system?
If so, what is the problem?
Is this problem, if any, fixable?
Does the system need to be reformed or modified?
What alternatives are there to rectify the situation?

Are you electing a president, or do you just want to sleep with him?

I wouldn't mind sleeping with someone who is witty, charming, smart, liberal, and good-looking, which means I wouldn't ever consider sleeping with GDub!:p

Before you posted, others brought up tort reform, then a problem was defined AND a solution offered. Solution using basic logic as even taught in high school science. Do you read before jumping to conclusions? Instead Yesman065 later responded: Your own words say you have a problem performing basic logic. Use of the word “fuck” says you are a product of extremist conservative training where basic logic is replaced by bullying. So prove me wrong. Surprise me. Use logic. Demonstrate that you can still define a fact using what was taught in junior high school science.

Yesman065 has solutions for 'tort reform'. Impose dictatorial restrictions on all juries. Yesman065 was asked to first define the problem. Is it lawyers, juries, or the judge? How can Yesman065 post a solution when he cannot first define the problem? Did he really forget how to think logically? Or should we "fully expected the "knee-jerk" reaction" from him.

Yesman065 demonstrates a serious problem in America. Yesman065 somehow knows what should be imposed on juries. But Yesman065 cannot first define a problem. By posting Yesman065 uses a political agenda as a replacement for basic logic. Classic Limbaugh logic. Yesman065 forgot to also blame Hilary.

Demonstrated: some American citizens cannot even grasp junior high school science principles. How does a jury with too many Yesman make an informed and logical verdict? They don’t. So how do we legislate this Yesman problem?

Demonstrated by Yesman065 is another problem in juries. People using an extremist political agenda, the word "fuck", accusations based only in emotion, and total disregard for logical thought (as taught in junior high) ... somehow these people have all the answers. Problem first need not be defined. Apparently we don't need tort reform. Apparently we need laws that require one to define a problem before imposing dictatorial solutions. Once, people graduated from junior high school having learned how to form facts and perform basic logic. Laws were not necessary. Hypothesis and experimental evidence. Somehow simple science got lost on Yesman065. He need not even define a problem because he already has solutions – and four letter words to prove it.

Did you miss the above tw??? Or are you above answering others questions? You again come off as some "holier than thou" ass by acting like you are right and there is no other answer. You try again ands see if you can answer the simple questions without a dissertation on your opinions of me, especially since you don't know squat about me.

Long before Yesman065 posted a 'four letter word' emotional tirade, a problem was defined and a solution was proposed. Yesman065 - I shall make it simpler just for you.
Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. ...

See how it works? A problem is identified. Only then is a solution proposed.

So that Yesman065 need not remain so confused and for a third time: this question defines a problem long before any solution can be proposed: What is the problem? Juries, lawyers, or the Judge? What is the problem? Yesman065 - can you answer that one question?

So you as a juror know know that you were shorted facts. By whom? The judge, the lawyers or both? Again, you have not specified. Perhaps it is a design flaw within the system. That is not known as you did not address who "shorted you information." In your case it is possible and probable that the award was raised by this unclear withholding of information, but it is not known by whom.

That does not change the fact that most believe the compensation awards are ridiculously large in many cases and do not begin to prevent that for which they were intended. Overtly high awards have left many disenfranchised with "the system", creates an ever increasing number of cases and backlogs the system from concentrating on other cases that most likely deserve more time & attention.

Therefore, I believe that you have not given us all enough information to ascertain where the fault lies. You have only told us that you were "shorted information massively" without informing us by whom.