Lately, it has become a growing concern on the people who deal with the provision of emergency services. The liability of the field of emergency services has become one of major concern. Threats of litigation facing the volunteers that provide emergency services might become a demotivation to them and this may cause a withdrawal in the number of organizations willing to provide these services. The essay that follows will give a detailed account of the tort reform processes that face the fire department and other institutions that offer emergency services. The threat of litigation has become the major concern in some remote areas where the residents highly rely on emergency services. The essay will give a brief definition of what tort is and then it will give a detailed account of the tort reform system that faces the fire department and other emergency services (Burke, 2002, p. 13).
According to Waites (2003, p. 23), “tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages”. A tort is a system whereby the wrongs were done by one party against another’s person, possessions, or other secluded interests are compensated using monetary value. Tort reform, therefore, activates for personal injuries.
The tort system in itself requires that in the case that a party or an individual harms or causes harm to the other, it requires that the victim is to be compensated usually in terms of money. This monetary compensation is aimed at making up for the loss that may be incurred by the victim in the case of recovery, for the pain that they may have undergone, or even for the loss of any segment of their body parts.
The local jurisdiction should take a critical look at what their expectations of the fire and other emergency departments should entail. It is the natural nature of every role or service provider to impose costs and other associated risks on the citizens and the serviced providers themselves. Nurses and doctors are now living in constant fear of facing litigation if they fail to provide emergency services to patients. This has been a case that is currently affecting even the other sectors that deal with the provision of emergency services.
Normally, accidents occur in two incidences. The first incidence is where the two parties do not know about each other’s existence up until the time of the accident. The other kind of accident is where the two parties have sufficient knowledge about each other before the occurrence of the accident. Before the 1960s the two used to be treated on separate grounds. In the case where the two parties did not know each other, the case was treated under tort law. This used to preside over a case that happened between two strangers. In the case where the two parties knew each other, the case was treated under contract law. However, in recent years this dissimilarity has been virtually done away with by the court system. Presently, the courts are not willing to agree to contractual limits in the case of injuries that occur between parties that knew each other aforehand. This reluctance might apply to both the standards that govern liability in addition to the restrictions of damage recompense (Perelman, 2006, para. 7)
In the case of those agencies that deal with emergency services is the fire department. Considerations that should be made when applying litigation terms on such an avenue as the fire department is like that of staffing the recommendable and specialized individuals. Another consideration should be the likely hood and occurrence of fires that are likely to occur. This should then be compared to the costs the firefighters incur and the risks that they face when trying to come to terms with the occurrence of such an event.
The tort system has three main impacts that it has on the economy. One of the impacts it has on the economy is that the litigation and payments that are made during compensation raise the overall insurance costs to skyrocketing expenses. This is due to the fact that most compensation will be made by insurance companies causing the general public to shift this expense on to insurance companies. Plaintiff lawyers made concerns that the insurance companies were gaining skyrocketing profits. The lawyers are raising complaints that the tort reforms have considerately put the insurance companies at the receiving end of a lump some amounts of profits. The insurance companies are therefore using this as an open door opportunity to make big profits.
Another issue raised by this tort reform is that the liability class has in turn raised the number of profits received by the insurance companies. Consequently, this has led to an increased appetite for insurer businesses. Due to this increase in insurance companies engaging in insurance policies for the reform torts, there has resulted to increased competition, which has therefore resulted to lower prices and increased availability of insurance (United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 1996, para. 8).
Another impact that has been brought about by the tort reform is that there has been redua action in the number of bodily accidents. This has resulted to few claims on bodily injuries, which has led to an overall reduction in the claims pursued by plaintiffs in the course of medical and economical costs.
Due to the tort reform, there has been a marked increment in tnumberity of profits gained by insurers. This has resulted due to the combinations of a number of items that include increased premiums, firmer underwriting standards, a remarkable reduction in policy terms as well as conditions for these policies. This increment is also coupled with the impact that the tort reform has had on the insurers and the most probable case of a conducive environment for factors on claim costs. After the introduction of the tort reform, insurer profitability has greatly increased and has even exceeded the “normal” return on capital prospect.
As a result of the tort reform, consumers experienced a welcomed reduction in the price of quantities. In addition to this, the consumers also benefited from expansion in policy terms together with conditions. Due to the competitive nature of the market, the price reductions were expected to continue. Furthermore, it is expected that different market segments to undergo price reductions. These price reductions were estimated to go up to 20% in between 2007 and 2008 (Perelman, 2006, para. 14)
The tort reform has also had a significant impact in the number of plaintiffs that are currently being contacted to pursue litigation. It has been observed that since the reform was brought about, there are less cases of litigation being presented in courts by injured people. This has led to the conclusion that less injured people who were previously pursuing litigation are not doing so. There has also been a remarkable drop in the number of personal injury insurance claims that are being reported and this can at least be attributed to the introduction of the tort reform. Since the tort reform has led to reduction in value of claims, individuals have seen these injuries as minor cases (United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 1996, para. 13)
The tort reform can be broken down into four broader categories:
- The first category is that of targeted comebacks that were particularly intended for the groups that were hardly hit by the insurance disaster
- restrictions that should be imposed on claims related to personal injury.
- lawful or resolution modification
- Codification of a number of aspects that are related to the law of negligence.
In summary, the tort reform has seen a remarkable difference in the insurance companies and other institutions that offer emergency services. The doctors have a hard time in handling emergency cases since they are faced with the threat of litigation. The fire fighting industry is also experiencing a bottleneck due to the tort reforms. Consumers on the other hand are experiencing a good time since there is a remarkable reduction in the prices of goods produced which has resulted due to the tort reform. Insurance companies have benefited greatly after this tort reform. The number of profits experienced by this insurance companies has sky rocketed and they have in turn had an increase in insurance appetite. The numbers of bodily accidents have also greatly reduced. What’s more, there are less cases of litigation being addressed in courts.
References
Burke, T. (2002). Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Perelman, M. (2006). What’s Wrong with Tort Reform? Web.
United States Congress Joint Economic Committee. (1996). Improving the American Legal System: The Economic Benefits of Tort Reform. Web.
Waites, R. (2003). Courtroom Psychology and Trial Advocacy. New York: American Lawyer Media.