By John A. Tures, Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is hoping to prosecute the case against lawsuit abuse. But does tort reform tend to work? I look at evidence from the health care field to see if curtailing suits helps lower costs for the consumer, the intended beneficiaries.

According to AP writer Charlotte Kramon “Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Thursday reiterated his simple pitch for lawsuit limits: They’ll halt rising insurance costs.” She adds “The issue is Kemp’s top priority this year. His proposals include reevaluating Georgia’s rules on what makes businesses liable for injuries on their property, making sure people seek compensation only for medical expenses they paid themselves, and preventing lawyers from throwing irrelevant numbers at jurors to seek higher damages.”

Georgia’s Governor stated ““Grocery stores, hospitals, road pavers, small business owners, truckers, restaurants, mom and pop stores, retailers, gas stations, doctors, child care facilities, and hardworking Georgians across our state are all telling us the same thing: Georgia needs tort reform and we need it now,” Kemp said at a news conference.’”

Those words would normally be music to my ears. I grew up in a house where my dad was a doctor, and fear of rampant lawsuits was a constant concern, hampering anyone in the health care field. Whenever he had on “L.A. Law” I would ask if he was doing “opposition research.” I’ve known other cases of families facing huge civil judgments.

I thought tort reform would affect health care spending. But in a graphic that I share with my class titled “Limiting Lawsuits: A Summary of Torm Reform Findings” shows that hospital spending per patient and physician spending per patient don’t show a significant increase or decrease.

As for Kemp’s pro-business liability protection. “The reality, though, is more complicated,” Kramon claims. “Changes could reduce liability insurance costs for businesses and commercial property owners. The evidence is mixed on whether it would drive large premium reductions for car and other types of insurance. Some researchers say efforts limiting lawsuits, often called tort reform, fattens insurers’ profits more than it cuts the price of policies.”

Additionally, there are cases where such lawsuits are warranted. Limiting the right to seek punitive damages fails to convince business and property owners to change policies that might be harmful to the public; think of the scalding hot McDonald’s coffee case from long ago. Additionally, the pursuit of punitive damages often convinces a law firm to pursue justice in civil court. If it were only about medical expenses, the plaintiff may not find a lawyer, unwilling to work for so little, hurting the ability of the wronged to seek medical redress. And yes, I know victims who not only deserved justice for medical malpractice, but the funds almost entirely go toward lifelong 24-hour care. They live in our neighborhood, so I know they’re not getting rich off of their judgment.

Clearly, we need some system to keep people in health care and business honest, but not one that hampers the right to hold people accountable for civil wrongs. This could be the case of “making the opposite mistake.” A better plan for achieving Kemp’s goals may end up involving a review board to root out frivolous cases, allowing the legitimate ones to not only go forward, but to include punitive damages when juries find appropriate.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.