So What?

Many tort reformers try and use dollars and cents to persuade the public that we should drastically change the civil justice system. A particularly salient example is DaimlerChrysler President Tom LaSorda’s recent claim that tort costs add $500 to the cost of every vehicle. While it is worth noting that LaSorda himself admits this figure is inaccurate – oh, is it ever - refuting that number isn’t the point of this post.

Mr. LaSorda, for the sake of argument, I won’t challenge your claim that $500 of the price of every vehicle you sell is due to the costs of the tort system. Instead, I ask you, “So what?” Catalytic converters and other smog-control devices add more than $500 to the cost of a car, but you don’t argue that we need to gut the Clean Air Act; the purpose of the Clean Air Act is to protect the environment, not to help manufacturers sell cars.

The purpose of our civil justice system is (at least) threefold:

1: To make tort victims as whole as possible.
2: To hold tortfeasors financially accountable for their misdeeds.
3: To deter others from committing torts.

The purpose of our civil justice system is not to help manufacturers sell cars. So when you claim that $500 of the cost of my PT Cruiser comes from the civil justice system, I again ask you, “So what?” That figure might make for an interesting trivia question, but it doesn’t justify changing the civil justice system. The purpose of our civil justice system is not to help manufacturers sell cars.

Mr. LaSorda, you strongly imply that $500 is simply too much for the civil justice system to add to a car’s price. Do you have a number in mind that would be fair? I suspect you do. And I suspect that number is $0.00. Your company supports legislation that would prohibit any liability lawsuit over any product that was approved by a federal regulatory agency. The effect of such legislation would be to almost completely eliminate product liability lawsuits against auto manufacturers; such legislation would also frustrate the purposes of our civil justice system. I don't call that reforming the justice system, I call it destroying the justice system.

More than once, I’ve invited readers to help me see the relevance in the tort “reform” debate of the cost of the civil justice system, only to be met with vague arguments and various personal attacks. I again repeat my invitation. Am I off the mark when I argue that helping Tom LaSorda sell more cars is not a valid reason to change our justice system? Note that I am not arguing whether tort "reform" will help sell more cars. I am instead arguing that even if it did, economic benefits do not constitute sufficient cause to change our justice system.

(Originally posted at TortDeform.com)