Corbett's platform on legal reform limits Pennsylvania injury victims' ability to obtain full compensation- and must be carefully evaluated
Republican candidate for governor,and present Attorney General, Tom Corbett, has been campaigning state-wide, attempting to explain his plan for the “revitalization of Pennsylvania’s economy”. His first order of business is to try and get the Pennsylvania legislature to pass the “Fair Share Act,” a law vetoed by current Governor Rendell on March 24, 2006. (A later version was found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). Corbett has said that he would sign such a bill.
While “legal reform” is always a flashy campaign platform, it is important for voters and political commentators to understand the consequences associated with passing legislation such as the Fair Share Act. Anyone, no matter what their political affiliation, can be involved in an accident and need compensation for their losses. If passed, the Fair Share Act would limit every accident victim’s ability to be compensated after an injury.
Currently, in civil cases, Pennsylvania’s procedural rules of joint and several liability hold that in a multiple defendant case, where more than one defendant is found liable, the plaintiff can recover all, or part of, his or her judgment from any liable defendant, even if a defendant is minimally liable. This policy is designed to protect plaintiffs by ensuring that they will be able to recover their jury verdict and be fully compensated for their injuries.
The Fair Share Act (as previously proposed) would replace joint and several liability in cases where there is more than one liable defendant. However, under the Fair Share Act, if a defendant is found less than 60% responsible for the plaintiff’s damages, that defendant would be required to pay damages only in the amount equal to their percentage of responsibility as determined by a jury.
Obviously under the present system of joint and several liability, the Pennsylvania legislature and courts have placed the plaintiff’s rights higher than those of the defendants in civil cases involving multiple defendants. By naming the proposed legislation the “Fair Share Act,” proponents are espousing that defendants in civil cases are presently paying more than their fair share in cases where there is more than one defendant.
Yet, if the Fair Share Act is resurrected, it would have a devastating impact on injured plaintiffs and their ability to collect damages. If, for instance, in a typical car accident case involving multiple defendants, where an uninsured party is found responsible for most of the damage award and that defendant cannot pay for lack of insurance, the plaintiff would no longer be able to collect monetary damages from an insured defendant if that defendant is less that 60% at fault. It is easy to argue that this may be fair to defendants. But where does that leave the injured victim who through no fault of his own sustained personal injuries, wage loss and incurred medical bills? The Fair Share Act would simply leave many plaintiffs vulnerable and would expose Pennsylvania accident victims to the very real possibility of being left under compensated. We would see many situations where plaintiffs “win their case” yet remain responsible for payment of their own medical bills which would otherwise, under the present rule of joint and several liability, be the defendants’ responsibility to pay. We would see many situations where the injured plaintiff loses time from work due to someone else’s negligence, yet never receive fair payment for his or her wage loss from the party that caused the plaintiff’s injuries which kept the plaintiff from working.
The Fair Share Act has nothing to do with “excessive or frivolous lawsuits” as Corbett states on his website. On the contrary, the abolition of joint and several liability in Pennsylvania and replacing that with some version of the Fair Share Act has everything to do with leaving Pennsylvania accident victims vulnerable to the interests of insurance companies who would be in a much better position at trial. The Fair Share Act would allow insurance companies with policy holders found to be less than 60% liable for damages not responsible for payment of the plaintiff's verdict. Leaving plaintiffs under compensated has never been the policy of the Pennsylvania courts and legislature, and Corbett's proposed change is by definition anti-consumer and anti-accident victim.
This is very informative. It is sometimes difficult to see how campaign slogans and promises would effect the everyday lives of so many citizens. Sometimes the consequences are not clear to the public.