Trial Lawyers should jump all over Vioxx/Celebrox to oppose tort reform

[NAO]

OK, the Trial Lawyers of America need to strike hard and fast, while the issue is hot, about the hidden agenda and immanent disaster in the so called "tort reform" plans.

They need to point out that the only thing that makes these companies EVER admit that there is any problem with their highly profitable drugs is the risk of getting their asses sued off. If that risk were taken away, there would be no downside to putting out dangerous products.

Polluters, drug companies, auto manufacturers, and all sorts of companies that make consumer products would be give a "get of of litigation free" card by tort reform. With a limit on settlements, they could literally build the cost of liability into their defective, dangerous products.

Right now the major media is focused on the Vioxx/Celebrex scandals, and there was a recent report about Paxil. There is discussion of how these companies knew all along about the problems, but hid the information so they could maximize profits.

That is enough for the Trial Lawyers to jump on and come out looking like corporate crime fighters and defenders of the people (which is how they should be seen.)

[SHRED]

1. I agree!

:toast:

[iamjoy]

2. Not Lawyers...

consumer watchdog groups

or maybe both.

I think tort reform is largely inconsistent with free market principles. I mean, we could call for stricter govt inspections, etc. Or, we could have very little govt oversight, but if a company makes a product found to be unsafe, they can be sued, and potentially sued big. Let the company decide if it is worth the risk to put an unsafe product on the market knowing they could lose a lot of money from lawsuits. If the govt didn't interfere in the production, why should they suddenly step in when some one attempts to address a grievance?


I'm not saying we should do away with govt oversight and just allow huge lawsuits. It seems like this admin. wants to do away with both and leave the customer with no defense.

[depakid]

4. No, that's not how they figure it

If a drug kills 100's of thousands or people, then market forces will go to work and people will stop buying that drug. Moreover, they will stop buying the companies' other drugs, too.

Of course, any person in their right mind (which economic libertarians aren't) could give you a dozen reasons right out of econ 101 why that reasoning is hogwash- but all those types will do is put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la."

[Dr Ron]

3. Some lawyers are blowing it

On the one hand, this is an example of the problems with Bush's ideas of tort reform. The same proposals which would limit claims on medical malpractice would give protection to the drug manufacturers even if they knowingly provided inaccurate information on the safety of their drug.

On the other hand, some lawyers aren't helping their cause--the slimey ones who immeditely start advertising for clients among everyone who has ever been on Vioxx. People who had cardiac complications secondary to Vioxx may have a case, but this does not mean that everybody who has ever been on Vioxx should be suing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Yes it does. How can they know they won't be negatively affected?

If they don't file by a certain time they might preclude themselves from ANY remedy SHOULD they have developed an anomoly. Besides, heart problems can remain silent? How will they know they harmed themselves. There is NOTHING frivolous about people who have taken Vioxx long term protecting their right to sue. Once the suit is filed, there may be other discovery that demonstrates the drug causes more problems than the ones the company decided to pull the drug for.

[Devil Dog Dem]

6. Trust me, they are on it. They'll make their money and fuck their clients

They always do.