skip to content

Consumers

Family of four pays $9,827 in Litigation Tax!

Looking for what to do next? Find out at the end of this article.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers advertise their services as being in the interests of consumers. That is not always the case. Every person in this country, whether they are aware of it or not, pays a tort tax because of the excessive litigation produce by those attorneys. Jackpot Justice, a study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute, estimates the total cost of litigating civil cases is $865 billion a year. America’s out-of-control legal system makes a $2.36 billion hit on the economy each day.

  • The top jury award in 2008 was $388 million, more than three times 2007’s top award of $109 million, Lawyers USA reports. The average award was $112 million, more than twice the average award ($51 million) of 2007.
     
  • Consulting firm Tillinghast-Tower Perrin reported that as of December 2008, the tort tax for a family of four is $3,340 a year.
     
  • Including both direct costs and forgone benefits, the annual tort tax reaches $9,827, according to the Pacific Research Institute.
     
  • Ted Frank, director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Legal Center for the Public Interest, testified in Congress in March 2009 that the total loss for an average family of four due to tort costs could be as much as $12,000 a year.
     
  • Tillinghast-Tower Perrin also found that litigation costs the country nearly 2% of gross domestic product each year.
     
  • The cost of excessive tort litigation is the equivalent of an 8 percent tax on consumption or a 13-percent tax on wages, “the combined annual output of all six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), or the total annual sales of the U.S. restaurant industry,” the Pacific Research Institute reports.
     
  • PRI noted in its 2008 U.S. Tort Liability Index that over the previous 50 years, direct U.S. tort costs have increased more than 100-fold while over the same period, the population has not doubled and economic output has risen by only 37-fold.
     
  • More money comes out of Americans’ pockets each year to pay for our tort system than is spent on new cars.
     
  • Foundation for Fair Civil Justice chairman Steve Hantler says that “For an American family of average income, tort costs could pay for more than three months of groceries, six months of utility payments, or eight months of health care costs.”

Higher Prices, No Improved Quality – Thank a Plaintiffs’ Lawyer

When corporations have to pay for abusive and frivolous lawsuits, both through defense expenses and jury awards, the costs are passed on to the consumer. A good portion of the tort tax is paid in higher retail costs.

  • “Every product we sold – for example, lawn mowers, ladders, hammers – there’s a dollar amount built into those products from the manufacturers” to pay for their liability and legal costs, says Bernie Marcus, co-founder of The Home Depot.
     
  • A Chrysler executive has said that product liability costs add $1,000 to every car that’s built in America.

American Innovation Scuttled By Lawsuit Abuse

Higher costs are not the only way in which consumers are negatively impacted by our litigious society. The flood of lawsuits has put a damper on innovation. The threat of a lawsuit can kill the incentive a company has to invent a new product.

According to Jackpot Justice, “when businesses operate in a high-liability-risk environment, they respond to increased liability burdens by eliminating investments in product novelty because novel products have more uncertain safety characteristics.”
Sometimes, the threat of being sued is enough for companies to keep their products off the market.

Every Product and Service Costs More – And You Get Less!

Let’s look at a good example of how you pay more for less.  According to the federal government, so-called “defensive medicine” costs total more than $100 billion per year.  Defensive medicine includes tests and procedures by physicians that are done solely for the purpose of avoiding potential medical malpractice lawsuits – and, by definition, these tests provide little if any benefit for patients themselves!  Tests cost big money, which is paid for by medical insurance, which is paid for by employers and, ultimately, consumers themselves.

Here’s how the economists tell us this works:  Your physician orders tests, some of which are considered “defensive medicine” to protect the physician against potential lawsuits.  Either your insurance company or you pay these additional costs.  Your health insurance costs go up, too – whether you’re paying for it yourself or your employer is paying for it. 

Meanwhile, in most states, the physician’s medical liability insurance premiums continue to go up.  In some states, the cost of such insurance becomes too great a burden on the physician.  That physician packs up and moves to another state or leaves the medical practice altogether.  In Texas, for example, there were entire counties and regions without vital medical services because of this phenomenon.  Lives were in danger, and costs were skyrocketing.  Earlier this decade, Texas enacted common sense medical liability reforms – and now, adequate medical services are available in the entire state and costs have dropped for insurance and medical care.

Now What Do We Do?

Foundation for Fair Civil Justice (FFCJ) exists to bring empowering programs and education to consumers. 

  • Please take the time to sign up for our Fairness Matters e-newsletter, which will bring you news items right to your email that tell the ongoing story about the need for legal reform by clicking here.  We don’t share your email address with anyone – that’s important to us.

  • Learn more about the bread-and-butter, common sense need for legal reform and how lawsuit abuse affects you as a consumer by listening to our “Let’s Be Fair” radio commentaries, hosted by FFCJ Senior Fellow Bob Dorigo Jones by clicking here

    Bob is a bestselling author and founder of the nationally profiled “Wacky Warning Label Contest,” which annually picks the wackiest warning labels on products to underscore the absurd lengths to which American business has to go in response to the threat of lawsuits.

     
  • Finally, we hope that FFCJ programming is a good investment for your business and for America!  Please take the time to invest in our work to protect you by making a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.


Read More


| Print Article



See All News Headlines > In the Headlines

FFCJ | Forbes.com Spotlights FFCJ’s Legal Liability Toolkit Tutorials

Without waiting for legislation to end lawsuit abuses‚ FFCJ is helping business and nonprofits to avoid mistakes that attract lawsuits.  Each of the five free online Legal Liability Toolkit Tutorials use 20 scenario to familiarize users with liability principles and legal requirements. The tutorials were prepared and reviewed by experienced trial lawyers.


Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

A moment of clarity from Howard Dean, courtesy of CNS News, who took this video at the town-hall forum of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). When an angry constituent wondered why a supposedly comprehensive “reform” of the health-care system doesn’t include tort reform to lower costs of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine, Dean responds as “a doctor and a politician.” Apparently, neither has the courage to face the trial-lawyer lobby.


FFCJ Releases Exclusive “Role of the Courts” Video

To stimulate public discussion about the importance for state court decisions to adhere to the principle of the “rule of law”, FFCJ has produced a short video program that will be aired as regular programming starting this month on PBS.  PBS expects a minimum of 3 million viewers to watch it! “The Role of the Courts” will also be available for more than 38 million subscribers on cable starting in January.

“The Role of the Courts” features two retired state Supreme Court Justices—Harold See of Alabama (top left) and Cliff Taylor of Michigan (below left). See and Taylor briefly discuss how the judicial system was framed by the U.S. Constitution.



See All Opinions & Editorials > Opinions & Editorials

Trial Bar vs Tort Reform

Rep. Lamar Smith

(Politico.com) A recent op-ed in POLITICO by Anthony Tarricone, president of the American Association of Justice, describes the thousands of participants at hundreds of health care town halls as “angry mobs” scaring seniors with claims of death panels. He rushed to defend trial lawyers, who he claimed were being used as a “scapegoat for all America’s ills and woes.”

But my experience with the health care debate has been quite different from Tarricone’s tall tale. The thousands of people who attended my public forums were not angry mobs; they were concerned citizens exercising their constitutional rights. They did not scream, shout or attempt to burn trial lawyers at the stake. They came to express their views — as Americans in a democracy.

 


CBO Underestimates Benefits of Malpractice Reform

Dr. Lawrence McQuillan, Pacific Research Institute

Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said medical-liability reforms could save about $11 billion annually. This assessment is a gross underestimate of the potential benefits of reform and was intended to give cover to congressional Democrats who say malpractice-liability costs are trifling. But a full accounting shows the benefits would be a hefty $242 billion a year, more than 10 percent of America’s health expenditures.


Why Medical Malpractice is Off Limits

Phil Howard, Common Good

Eliminating defensive medicine could save upwards of $200 billion in health-care costs annually, according to estimates by the American Medical Association and others. The cure is a reliable medical malpractice system that patients, doctors and the general public can trust.

But this is the one reform Washington will not seriously consider. That’s because the trial lawyers, among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party, thrive on the unreliable justice system we have now.

Almost all the other groups with a stake in health reform—including patient safety experts, physicians, the AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, schools of public health—support pilot projects such as special health courts that would move beyond today’s hyper-adversarial malpractice lawsuit system to a court that would quickly and reliably distinguish between good and bad care.

The support for some kind of reform reflects a growing awareness among these groups that managing health care sensibly, including containing costs, is almost impossible when doctors go through the day thinking about how to protect themselves from lawsuits.


© 2010 Foundation for Fair Civil Justice 250 Willow Springs Drive, Roswell, GA 30075 770.317.2423 info@foundationforfairciviljustice.org