We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Tort Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Union
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2739
Description[?]:
| The NU believes that capping monetary damages in medical malpractice suits will help control healthcare costs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tort reform on non-civil lawsuits.
Old value:: There is no cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Current: There is a cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Proposed: There is a cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:53:29, April 07, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Lawsuits have a reason to exist, mostly because there was an incident where injury occurred. Those responsible should pay a reasonable amount of money to the plaintiff in order to mitigate the pain and suffering such incident could have happened. We also don't want to take the decision away from the judges. They are the ones who listen to the cases; therefore, the most qualified to determine the amount of money the defendant should pay. |
| Date | 23:19:41, April 07, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Wouldn't medical malpractice be a civil lawsuit? I'm confused what a non-civil suit is in this instance. Is this a typo in some way? If it is referring to civil suits, I'd prefer "There is a cap on monetary damages awarded to patients in lawsuits." Parliament could set the cap at medical expenses plus a certain additional sum for legal fees and pain and suffering in cases where it is justified such as when malice or gross negligence occurs. While lawsuits may result in unfair verdicts at times, it is also unfair to limit punitive damages against those deserving of such punishment. As for the LP claim that judges are so qualified - Aren't jury trials allowed in Lodamun or has the governing party in all its wisdom delegated that power like so many others to its own corrupt administration? The URP would change this if proposing new laws was allowed in this country. |
| Date | 01:06:35, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Civil lawsuits are not heard by a jury but by a judge. Criminal trials are the only ones (in most cases) where a jury is needed. Such accusations are unfounded and we will not waste our time in petty politics. |
| Date | 01:53:17, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | there's no specific law in Lodamun in this regard that i know of. If there is please cite it. |
| Date | 02:14:54, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Lodamun's Code of Justice Article 5 paragraph 2 Section a: "All defendants in a criminal trial have the right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers unless otherwise refused to by the defendant or his/her legal representative. If the defendant or his/her legal representative refuse a trial by a jury, the presiding judge will decide whether this is the appropriate path to take. The presiding judge has the sole power of granting/denying such motion." Convinced now? |
| Date | 02:21:50, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | This has nothing to do with civil lawsuits. Why don't you cite something pertaining to what we're talking about? If this is all that is written on this matter, I think it's obvious that civil lawsuits would follow the same rules as criminal trials AKA jury trials. |
| Date | 02:33:51, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | No, they wouldn't. If they did, the citation above would include the words "civil trials." Juries only apply to criminal trials in this case. We cannot see where "it's obvious" that civil suits would follow the same rules as criminal trials. |
| Date | 02:44:54, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Well I asked about civil lawsuits and you provided a quote about criminal lawsuits. You offered no proof to support your claim that civil trails would be decided by a judge. If there's no information about civil trails it's more rational to assume they follow the same form as a criminal trail rather than follow the opposite rules. |
| Date | 03:16:02, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Do you realize that there's a difference between civil and criminal trials? Why would they follow the same rules? If something is not specifically mentioned in a law, logic would indicate that it should follow a different path than that mentioned in the law. The example here is that criminal trials would use a jury but nothing indicates that civil trials will as well. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it would follow different rules. If it was intended to follow the same rules as criminal trials, why not include it in the law? |
| Date | 03:26:26, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | I could use your logic to assert that civil lawsuits are settled by coin flips. |
| Date | 03:40:37, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Yes, you could. Would that be a good assumption? Maybe not. |
| Date | 04:02:10, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | So are you finally ready to admit that I'm right? |
| Date | 04:26:00, April 08, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Nope because you are not. I am simply not going to spend too much time "arguing" with you. |
| Date | 23:09:48, April 08, 2009 CET | From | National Union | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | Bickering aside, how about the current proposal? |
| Date | 23:32:31, April 08, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | fine, but it seems the vote will never happen anyway. I'm going to have to complain to the mods about the conditions in this country.; |
| Date | 00:32:40, April 09, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | OOC: Go ahead. They can't do anything about it. Yes, I am being an asshole. Everyone knows I am one anyways, so why hide it? |
| Date | 00:33:07, April 09, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Tort Reform Act |
| Message | IC: The Liberal Party expressed its concern over this bill some time ago. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 100 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |