Prime Time for Tort Reform
 
Americans have access to one of the finest and most robust judicial systems in the world. And, while justice is not perfectly served, it remains the goal toward which we still aim. Historically, the U.S. has been good about correcting legal imbalances and unfairness, at least when injustices come to public light. But, a problem that is unknown can’t be fixed. Trial lawyers who prey upon vulnerabilities and loopholes in the law cannot be trusted to self-correct bad behavior. A hidden (albeit growing) problem in our legal system is mass tort litigation. Mass tort litigation is not a term many people are familiar with, but people are familiar with examples when they see it. First, torts are civil cases, not criminal proceedings. If, for example, a person is harmed by a defective product and seeks redress, they have now entered the world of tort law. When injuries occur to several people, and they collectively bring suit, that is mass tort litigation. There are any number of famous mass tort cases. What trial lawyers learned early on is that tort redress on a large scale proves extremely profitable. Today it is a multi-billion-dollar industry, fueled by slick marketing, that takes advantage of weaknesses in the legal system to turn incredible profits. Whole industries like medical, automotive, and consumer products (to name a few), are routinely shaken down by dishonest trial lawyers who understand that even the threat of mass tort litigation can result in huge settlements. Of course, the damages are not sustained only by industry. Thanks to rampant abuse, companies are forced to build in potential liability damages into the cost of products. In real terms, the sum of tort costs passed on to consumers is just under $500 billion, just over 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). If anybody ever wonders why their automobile or medical insurance is on the rise, thank your local trial lawyer association.
 
Unsurprisingly, America has significantly higher liability costs than peer nations. And, thanks to the unchecked abuses, the direct economic costs of the tort system grew at an annual rate of 6 percent year over year between 2016-2020. This exceeds both the rate of inflation and GDP growth. Thanks to these outstanding liability costs, American manufacturing costs are less competitive, foreign direct investment is negatively impacted, and innovation is deterred. And for those wondering if the poor plaintiffs (on whose behalf the trail lawyers ostensibly go to war) ever receive appropriate compensation from a successful mass tort litigation, the numbers speak for themselves. For every dollar paid in claimant compensation, 88 cents went to legal and related costs.
 
It doesn’t make sense to allow this lawsuit abuse to continue in the U.S., where it is estimated each citizen bears a yearly $1,300 tort tax. This only happens because the trial lawyer association is powerful, well-organized, and territorial. They know how their bread is buttered and don’t want the good times to end. If U.S. lawmakers (encouraged by voters) could get serious about tort reform with teeth, much of the recent inflationary pain could be alleviated. And the fixes don’t have to be complicated. For example, increasing penalties for filing frivolous cases and capping fees litigators can collect will go a long way in checking trial lawyer rapaciousness. States can also begin reforms by prohibiting their own attorneys general from relying on trial lawyer contingency arrangements to bring mass tort litigation. It is clear that progress won’t be made if Americans stay on the sidelines. Mass tort abuse is slowly coming to light, and something needs to be done about the problem.
 
Rules of the Road 
 
Drivers across the country are paying the price for neglected roads that contribute to deadly and preventable accidents. There’s an $800 billion backlog of road and bridge repair and maintenance needs, leading some politicians and pundits to perpetually call for tax increases to fix these roads. The truth is that no amount of taxpayer funding is going to solve this problem if states and localities fail to fine-tune the rules of the road to prevent accidents and reduce wear and tear. Goaded by reckless federal proposals, some states and localities are ditching sensible length and weight limits on trucks in a misguided push to shore up the supply chain. Relaxing roadworthiness standards is a recipe for disaster. Policymakers must avoid policy potholes by embracing sensible rules of the road.
 
Roadworthiness rules are set by the 50 states with 50 different sets of rules. While these laws vary according to a host of factors, one common criterion is vehicle size. For example, policymakers in the U.S. have regularly debated whether to allow utility terrain vehicles on the road. The vehicles, known as UTVs, are typically smaller than ordinary cars and more like them than all-terrain vehicles, for which they are often mistaken. Like ordinary automobiles, UTVs make use of steering wheels and pedals and can seat multiple passengers. But even a four-seat UTV usually will not exceed 160 inches in length and 65 inches in width. Because UTVs are relatively small, policymakers are reluctant to have them share the road with larger vehicles because of the risks and costs associated with crashes.  These restrictions are understandable, given the relatively high cost borne by taxpayers for emergency services.
 
States have similarly good reason to restrict large trucks on the road. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: “Multiple-trailer trucks have more handling problems than single-trailer trucks. In general, the additional connection points contribute to greater instability, which can lead to jackknifing, overturning, and lane encroachments.” There is also a significant link between large trucks and road damage. A 9-ton rig does roughly 40 times as much damage as a Hummer H2. According to a 2023 analysis produced by county commissioners and engineers in Alabama, Illinois, Iowa and Texas, more than 70,000 local bridges nationwide “do not have sufficient weight ratings to safely accommodate 91,000-pound trucks.” Current federal rules give states and localities plenty of leeway to weigh risks and incorporate their own limits, although federal maximum weights are in place. While the current rules for semitrucks stipulate a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds, recent proposals in Congress would raise the limit to 91,000 pounds. For example, H.R. 3372 (“to establish a safety data collection program for certain six-axle vehicles, and for other purposes”) would enact a state opt-in pilot program raising gross vehicle weight limits to 91,000 pounds (on six axles) across the Interstate Highway System. In addition, the Carrying Automobiles Responsibly and Safely Act would increase the allowable weight on stinger-steered car haulers from 80,000 pounds to 88,000 pounds. These proposals enable reckless roadworthiness proposals across the country, jeopardizing the balance between safety, efficiency, and cost control. Lawmakers should reject these bills and encourage states and localities to set their own roadworthiness rules against the backdrop of a reasonable federal maximum level. Now is no time to steer America’s infrastructure system into a ditch.