Surname1
Student
Professor
Course
Date
Tort Reform in Texas: Constitutional Implications
Texas has implemented some of the most stringent tort reform laws across the United
States to enhance the business environment and cut expenses. However, these reforms pose
serious constitutional questions. Supporters argue that such approaches are essential to reducing
business expenses and luring investors to the state. Analysis of specific measures shows that
Texas’ tort reform may contain a de facto denial of citizens’ federal constitutional rights to access
justice and an impermissible encroachment on the Constitution’s granting of the function to
determine awards in civil actions to the Judiciary.
The tort reform movement escalated after McDonald's "hot coffee" case, which was
widely discussed but not frivolous. Detailed analysis of the information yields a different picture
of the actual situation. Mcdonald's coffee scalding case involved Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old
lady who was burned by Mcdonald's coffee, which she spilt on herself (Center for Justice &
Democracy para 2). She asked for only $20,000 to pay her medical bills, but McDonald's
declined to pay that amount. The jury granted her $200,000 of compensatory damages lowered to
$160,000 due to contributory negligence and $2. 7 million of punitive damages that the judge
later cut to $480,000 (Center for Justice & Democracy para 3).
However, testimonies produced in the trial revealed that over 700 cases of burns from
McDonald's coffee had been reported in the last ten years while the company continued
Surname2
preparing coffee at a temperature of 180 – 190 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that could
cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds (Center for Justice & Democracy para 4). Despite
acknowledging the risks involved, the company did not warn its customers adequately. This case
serves as a good example of how the tort system can play an essential role in ensuring that
companies are held responsible and encouraged to be more cautious in future.
Additionally, Texas tort reform measures infringe on the doctrine of separation of powers
by limiting the Judiciary's capacity to award reasonable damages in civil lawsuits. The authority
to resolve civil disputes and assess damages is one of the primary responsibilities of the
Judiciary. Through setting the damages and other limitations by legislation, the Texas legislature
has arguably acted unconstitutionally and encroached on the judicial power. This is especially
true about punitive damages, which are to deter undesirable behaviour in the legal system. Thus,
in the McDonald's case, for example, the large punitive damage award (even after reduction)
indicates that knowingly placing the consumer at risk is unacceptable. The restrictions on
punitive damages in Texas courts constrain the Judiciary from awarding proper punitive
remedies to punish reprehensible behaviour, thus weakening the deterrent aspect of tort law.
Supporters of tort reform frequently assert that ‘excessive’ tort expenses are burdensome
to industries and the nation’s economy. Nonetheless, studies have indicated that these assertions
are more or less hollow. A study done by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that there is no
evidence between tort costs and poor economic factors such as decreased research and
development expenditure, increased healthcare costs or loss of jobs (Eisenbrey and Chimerine
pg.10). The study revealed that countries with higher tort costs exhibited higher productivity than
countries with lower tort costs, proving thus, that costs associated with tort have an inverse
relationship with economic performance. However, the claim that tort reform will enable the
Surname3
creation of new jobs has no basis. Tort economists posit that while tort reform would succeed in
decreasing the rate of tort costs, it will result in a decline in employment levels or a loss of 220
thousands jobs four years after its implementation (Eisenbrey and Chimerine pg.17).
Furthermore, it is significant to understand that there are already provisions in the legal
system that enable the dismissal of mere nonsense cases. Judges have discretion to dismiss
frivolous claims and to discipline attorneys who bring them. The contingency fee system is a
disincentive for lawyers against taking weak cases since they are only paid when they win the
case.
In conclusion, despite the proffered objectives of tort reform, which are to eliminate sham
lawsuits and lessen the economic burden on businesses, Texas' approach strains constitutional
sensibilities. Thus, these reforms might compromise the rights of individuals and alter the
separation of powers between the branches of government by limiting access to the courts and
judicial discretion. Moreover, the economic gains that the reform advocates claim to be so
glorious have possible adverse effects on employment opportunities and creativity. An approach
that would maintain access to justice but adequately address the grievances of misuse of the legal
system would be more suitable to the Constitution and Texans.
Works Cited
Surname4
Center for Justice & Democracy. “McDonalds Coffee Case Facts | Texas Trial Lawyers
Association.” Ttla.com, 2019, www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=mcdonaldscoffeecasefacts.
Lawrence Chimerine, and Ross Eisenbrey. “The Frivolous Case for Tort Law Change:
Opponents of the Legal System Exaggerate Its Costs, Ignore Its Benefits.” Economic
Policy Institute, 2014, www.epi.org/publication/bp157/.
