Tort Reforms

Searching for a New Standard

As technology has advanced, exposure to harmful chemicals through pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and contact in certain occupations has increased dramatically. When a person develops a disease from the result of exposure to a certain drug or chemical, that person feels that they have been wronged, and demands that the wrongdoer is held accountable. The problem with this issue is whether or not there is causation of the developed disease from exposure of the harmful substance. These scenarios are tried in court as toxic tort cases, and the question of whether or not the defending party is at fault is very rarely black and white. Courts have had differing opinions on the relevance of scientific knowledge to determine the winner of tort cases. Although difficult to conclude which approach should be taken in the future, closer examination may help find a middle ground.

Some courts have used a “tort standard,” which basically asks if the injury is likely to have been caused by the harmful substance. More often than not the tort standard leans in the favor of the plaintiff. The tort standard embodies the code of professional ethics in the idea that the job of professionals is to do no harm to the public. If carelessness of professionals has led to the harm of innocent people, then the party that committed the wrongdoing needs to be accountable for their actions. In most cases, the defending corporations are often going to have a significantly greater amount of resources and monetary support. If the standards in court were also slightly in the favor of the corporations than you would very rarely see the plaintiffs coming out on top. The tort standard is shifted slightly in the favor of the plaintiff to provide a level playing field. Currently, a successful tort lawsuit must satisfy four distinct criteria. These four criteria are very thorough and have appeared to be sufficient in the past. It seems asinine...