Arkansas Blog

The term "trial lawyers" does not just refer to those who represent plaintiffs. I know more than a few trial lawyers in the defense bar who are quite disappointed in this ruling.

Right, Gaddis, defense lawyers are in trials, too. I'm using the frequently employed phrase -- said either proudly or with revulsion depending on your viewpoint -- about the plaintiffs bar. their own organization is known as the Trial Lawyers Association. In political context, when a candidate says, "The trial lawyers are backing my opponent," all underestand what that means. I meant to imply that happiness was from that end of the bar, not the entire bar, of course

I scanned the decision and still wonder if the entire "reform" was declared unconstitutional? Was tort "reform" enacted as several different statutes and only this portion has been ruled unconstitutional? I would hope that the lawsuit caps portion would be struck down, too. That portion seems to me to be the most egregious.

But, of course, our legislators know more about how to value the damages of lawsuits than juries who actually hear the evidence.

"their own organization is known as the Trial Lawyers Association."--maxb

They actually call themselves the American Association for Justice now. See justice.org.

I know what you meant, Max. I was just pointing out that the phrase is really used as a synonym for litigator. Check out this article from the ABA Journal, which discusses both plaintiff and defense lawyers:

http://abajournal.com/magazine/2009/03

To wit, "These seven lawyers are among the best litigators in America. Strike that. Most of them consider the word litigator an insult. They're trial lawyers." The phrase is not used exclusively to mean plaintiffs' lawyers, at least not unless you're a Republican politician.

Plus, we aren't really in the "political context" here, are we? We're talking about a court case, not politics.

"Plus, we aren't really in the "political context" here, are we? We're talking about a court case, not politics."

Tell me the difference....

"I would hope that the lawsuit caps portion would be struck down, too. That portion seems to me to be the most egregious."--Perplexed

There are no caps on compensatory damages in the Civil Justice Reform Act. Such a provision would be plainly unconstitutional under the Arkansas Constitution, Article V, Section 32. The only caps were on punitive damages, which are already limited by the due process provisions of federal constitutional law.

As to your question about several statutes, the Civil Justice Reform Act was one act passed by the General Assembly. The CJRA contained several sections, each of which is codified in the Arkansas Code as a separate statute. This ruling held two of those sections unconstitutional. The remainder of the CJRA, with the exception of a previously struck requirement relating to medical malpractice cases, remains intact.

"Tell me the difference"--Perplexed

Dude, if you don't know. . .

At any rate, the Arkansas Supreme Court is not supposed to rule statutes unconstitutional based on politics. I think the Court did that in this case, but that's not what's supposed to happen. The question is supposed to be whether the Constitution and the statute conflict. Politics are not supposed to play any role in answering that question.

Gaddis, I was just being tacky. I'm not going to get into a legal argument with you. I'm no lawyer and won't pretend to be one. But my point is that all laws are political. Laws are enacted as the result of politics. And while I certainly understand and appreciate our important need for judges to determine cases based on the law and not their own political opinion, there is no such thing as a totally objective opinion. I agree with and treasure the maintenance of objectivity as an ideal - that's what being a nation of laws is all about, but no decision is totally pure in the real world. e.g. The Supreme Court of the United States.

It was my understanding that the so-called tort reform enacted in Arkansas did indeed have a $1 million cap on punitive damages. Is that not so? No sarcasm intended here, but could you give a short explanation of how the due process provisions of federal constitutional law limit punitive damage awards in Arkansas? I've never heard that before. I really just want to know what Arkansas' current situation is.