July 27, 2007

Discovery Rule: The only reasonable approach to statutes of limitation

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., threw out a woman's equal pay claim because it held that the statute of limitations had expired. The Court held that, because she learned she was paid less than her male counterparts years after the discrimination occurred, she was out of luck.

David A. Drachsler from Legal Times writes that the "Discovery Rule" should apply to these claims. His approach is the only reasonable approach to statutes of limitation. Under the discovery rule, the statue of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the harm.

Where the discovery rule is not followed, wrongdoers can avoid liability if they can hide their wrongdoing from an injured person. Surely this is not the intent of a statute of limitations.

Bookmark: Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at del.icio.us Digg Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Digg.com Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Spurl.net Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Simpy.com Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at NewsVine Blink this Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at blinklist.com Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Furl.net Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at reddit.com Fark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Fark.com Bookmark Discovery%20Rule%3A%20The%20only%20reasonable%20approach%20to%20statutes%20of%20limitation at Yahoo! MyWeb

July 27, 2007

Tort reform is bad, even for its advocates

Conservatives who champion tort reform are often the first to file the lawsuits that they defile as "frivolous". Remember Rick Santorum filing a lawsuit as he argued on the Senate floor for caps on damages? Here is the latest example of Republican hypocrisy with Judge Robert Bork filing a suit seeking punitive damages, the sort most detested by tort reformers:

Leading Conservative Activist Seeks Punitive Damages

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they "wantonly, willfully, and recklessly" failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law. In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy--the official journal of the Federalist Society--Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:

State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.

Ted Frank, another leading proponent of tort reform, questions the merits of Judge Bork's claims:

I sympathize with Judge Bork's serious injuries, but it's beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the "unreasonable" height that the complaint alleges it to be.


Bookmark: Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at del.icio.us Digg Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Digg.com Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Spurl.net Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Simpy.com Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at NewsVine Blink this Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at blinklist.com Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Furl.net Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at reddit.com Fark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Fark.com Bookmark Tort%20reform%20is%20bad%2C%20even%20for%20its%20advocates at Yahoo! MyWeb