It is becoming increasingly clear that this nation
needs tort reform now. George W. Bush's mantra during
political campaigns has repeatedly called for
a new look at how are courts address the problem.
As any first year law student knows, a tort is
a civil wrong as opposed to a criminal one. If a person negligently
undertakes an action that results in damages
to another person, the perpetrator of that negligence is liable for
civil penalties. Some behavior is actionable
both under civil and criminal law. If a person intentionally hits
someone else, they can be liable for fines and
criminal penalties.
My concept for tort reform varies somewhat from
Bush's concept of what this should entail. For republicans,
"tort reform" essentially means to severely limit
penalties and liability for corporations and CEOs if they put a
defective product on the market. In other words,
if a company knowingly designs a car with a gas tank located
where it will explode into a conflagration upon
impact, Bush believes that the amount of penalties that the
company is liable for should be capped at an
amount that won't cut into their executive's stock options.
Republicans repeatedly vilify tort lawyers for
the enormous contingency fees that they earn from suing the
manufacturers of such products as SUVs with the
Firestone Self-Destructing Tire Feature, comparing these
personal injury attorneys to sharks. But sharks
and even lawyers do have important roles in the environment.
Sharks cull injured and dead animals from the
sea. Personal injury sharks keep tobacco CEOs from directly
marketing Marlboros to your children on the playground.
My concept of 'tort reform' is based on the Old
Testament, so I firmly believe that it should get the endorsement
of John Ashcroft, who is widely known for his
evangelical, fundamentalist beliefs. Our attorney general who
anointed himself with Crisco upon taking office
to recreate the rituals of Solomon and David, and who has
information directly from the source that calico
cats are the emissaries of Satin, undoubtedly looks to the
Old Testament as the final arbiter on such matters.
(Any cat owner who has had their pet use their Lazy-Boy
as a scratching post, knows that these animals
are clearly possessed. I could swear that mine once turned
her head 360 degrees while projectile vomiting.)
The basis of law reflected in the Old Testament
is the maxim: "Any Eye for an Eye". American jurisprudence
as it relates to civil law, is based on the idea
that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
I believe that these two concepts can be easily
reconciled. In our society, there seem to be a lot of bloody
noses and so I propose that "We go Old Testament
on these perpetrators's Asses", to borrow a conceit
from "Pulp Fiction".
For instance, if a certain politician wants to
raise the level of arsenic in the nation's water supply...well, no more
Perrier water for them! All of their drinking
water will be from sources that contain the maximum allotted amount
of the chemical.
If a politician believes that petroleum companies
should be allowed to voluntarily monitor their emissions and
limit their pollution as they see fit, then that
politician and the executives of those oil companies should be
required to relocate directly down wind from
those plants.
During George W. Bush's tenure as governor of
Texas, Houston over took Los Angeles's coveted position as
the most polluted city in the United States.
Under my theory of tort reform, immediately after their release from
jail for insider trading, Kenny Boy and Dubya
should be required to live in a trailer park next to one of Houston's
refineries. See how this works? I believe that
it's genius is in the simplicity.
If GE dumps a million pounds of carcinogenic PCBs
into the Hudson and Jack Welsh doesn't think that his company
should be responsible for cleaning it up, well,
he doesn't get any boutique water either.
If a chemical plant leaches a pesticide such as
Kepone into the Chesapeake Bay, contaminating the shell fish
population and ruining the livelihood of the
areas's fishermen, then the executives of that company and everyone
else responsible for the leaks should be required
to consume the products of their carelessness. Oysters on the
Half Shell, anyone? Clam Chowder? Soft shell
crabs? Under my vision of tort reform, this would be their daily staple.
The same concept can be applied to many other
areas of jurisprudence. For instance, if a company develops an
experimental vaccine for anthrax poisoning intended
for nation's military and it is suspected as a cause of the Gulf War Syndrome
that has rendered tens of thousands of our nation's soldiers ill and killed
hundreds, the executives from
that company should be required to regularly
inject the drug at the highest recommended dose.
If a chemical company develops an anti-malaria
drug which is thought to induce schizophrenia, paranoia and
hostile, aggressive behavior such as that of
the returning military personnel from Afghanistan who are implicated
in the killing of their wives at Fort Bragg,
then those officials in charge of marketing it to the military should be
compelled to be the subjects for the drug trials.
In the realm of environmental law, policies which
are advocated by certain administration officials should reflect
their life styles. For instance, when Gale Norton
was attorney general of Colorado, she endorsed voluntary
compliance by corporations with standards governing
the emissions of toxic waste. One such company dumped
poisonous matter into a Colorado river which
killed all living creatures for a seventeen miles. Under my proposed
tort reform...well, no Evian water for Norton.
And no milk baths either. I hope she likes Colorado trout.
Under my proposed legal reform, the defendant
literally puts their mouth where their money is.
Does a politician, CEO or flack hired to promote
strip mining or logging advance the idea that we should be able
to level mountains and dump the tailings into
streams and valleys, or that we should be able to log rare, old-growth
forests and leave entire mountains completely
denuded? Well, no trophy home in Boca Raton for them! The people
that favor such environmental obscenities should
be required to live in a home with a panoramic view of the carnage.
If a weapons manufacturer comes up with a brilliant
idea to rid the United States of radioactive waste by turning it
into depleted uranium weapons and then bombing
Iraq back into pre-historic Mesopotamia with them, then these
geniuses should be required to live down wind
of the testing grounds where these weapons are developed.
Humanitarian groups believe that depleted uranium
weapons are the cause of a much greater rate of cancer among
civilians in Iraq and Bosnia. American troops
that could be sent to Iraq for Bush Junior's new crusade will be also
exposed to this highly toxic waste. So, I propose
that everyone in the company that manufacturers these weapons
be routinely exposed to the pulverized shrapnel
in order to determine if in fact, they cause cancer and death.
If the CEOs of major cigarette companies appear
before a congressional committee and deny any knowledge that
their product has any adverse health consequences,
then they should be assigned a probation officer who will ensure
that the air in their offices, homes and places
of recreation mirrors that of what bartenders and waitresses are
subjected to in the honkey-tonks and watering
holes which these CEOs target with their advertising.
If the executives market a Pinto car that explodes
into a ball of fire upon impact, or they sell an SUV with the
featured Firestone tires that are guaranteed
to shred after a few hours of normal use, then those officials should
be 'volunteered' to serve as test crash dummies.
A manufacturer that develops a product like Agent
Orange which continues to cause illness, birth defects and death
in both Vietnamese peasants and our veterans,
should be required to have their house sprayed with the toxin. An
industrial strength version of 'Round Up' is
being dispersed from air craft over Columbia. The peasants complain
that it is killing their crops and making them
sick. If these CEOs are certain that it is benign, let them prove it.
If George W. Bush believes that Yucca Mountain
is a safe repository for nuclear waste and decides to bury it there
in spite of assurances to the residents of Nevada
that he wouldn't, under my proposed amendments to our legal
system, he would be required to move his ranch
from Crawford to a site bordering the dump.
Does George W. Bush wish to continue bombing practice
on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico? As anyone who
has visited the area knows, this part of the
world is beautiful, with world-class sailing and scuba diving. What does
Crawford have that is comparable? Mesquite? Rattle
snakes? Jack rabbits? I say that we should conduct military
exercises there. Or perhaps Kennebunkport. My
revision of the law would completely negate the NIMBY, or
'Not In My Backyard' syndrome. If you don't want
the nuisance in your backyard, you simply don't perpetrate it.
What about Bush's 'Star Wars' boondoggle for the
Military-Industrial-Complex? Some scientists have pointed out
inconvenient facts about this program, such as
that it doesn't work in the real world. It is alleged that the tests have
been fudged and that these weapons are only able
to intercept in-coming missiles when they are equipped with
homing devices. Scientists point out that these
interceptors are easily fooled by decoys. Rumsfeld now wants to
make the test results secret. I propose that
the proponents of this plan arrange for a test at, again, Crawford, Texas.
Rumsfeld, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz,
Dick and Lynne Cheney and the rest of the gang who
promote this inane idea could gather there for
a weekend while we lob missiles at the ranch. The whole Bush family
could be there. Just tell Jenna and Barbara that
it is a kegger and they will show up. Promise Noelle some Xanax.
We reserve the right to deploy a few decoys and
the missile should include a real warhead just to make the test
as realistic as possible. We also reserve the
right to ensure that no homing devices are installed. If a mushroom
cloud doesn't appear over Bush's beloved ranch,
then we can continue discussions as to whether the Strategic
Missile Defense system should be deployed at
the multi-billion dollar price tag which this will entail.
This concept of tort reform is readily adaptable
to corporate law. If a CEO of a company like Global Crossing,
Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton or Harken hides
debt, uses off-shore banks to avoid taxes, forgives huge loans
to executives and becomes involved in insider
trading, then those executives should be required to live at the
economical level of the most impoverished share
holder or employee who lost their 401 ks, pensions, IRAs and
the rest of their life savings. (This, of course,
after having spent a sentence in jail, the duration of which will be based
on a pro-rated, proportionate amount of time
linked to that which the typical inner-city kid might get for boosting
a car stereo; possibly a thousand years with
good behavior.)
If you believe that the United States needs tort
reform, please notify your elected officials. I sincerely believe that
my new, revised version of American jurisprudence
will significantly reduce the extent to which the people in our
society who swing their fists will impact on
our noses.