For more than three decades, reform has been discussed covering a variety of issues, from insurance and healthcare premiums to prices of goods and services . Tort law gives civilians the right to place liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different things if something goes wrong. The main problem of the Tort reform concerns non-economic damages. Noneconomic damages are compensation awarded for “pain and suffering.” The solution to this ongoing problem is to set a limit, or ceiling, on the amount of compensation you can receive for your “pain and suffering.” One problem with setting limits is that they are considered “unconstitutional” and “violate the right to trial by jury” (Hudson 1) established in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Stella Liebeck is said to have started the idea of ​​tort reform when she sued McDonald's for medical bills she incurred after she spilled boiling coffee on her knees and suffered severe third-degree burns on the inside of the thighs. After a thorough investigation of McDonald's records, Hilary Stout explains that Liebeck's lawyer found many people complaining about the temperature of the coffee and the dangers that could come from a hot drink. In that particular location it was demonstrated that the coffee was served at a temperature 20 degrees higher than indicated in the instructional manual that every McDonald's employee should know. The court soon decided that the accident was 20 percent due to Liebeck and 80 percent due to McDonald's. As a result, the jury awarded Liebeck $2.9 million in non-economic damages (1). After this case hit the news, magazines, tabloids, and other forms of media, the case became known as a "frivolous lawsuit" and is referenced whenever someone files a lawsuit against a company. Tort law has always been an issue in dispute. need attention, but it is the Supreme Court cases in which the plaintiff is awarded millions of dollars for his or her “pain and suffering” that have created the idea of ​​the need for a cap on certain awards and jurisdictions. According to Sherman Joyce, Victor Schwartz and Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association, more than 30 states have implemented some noneconomic damages reforms. For example, they report that in 1986 the Alaska government established a $500,000 state cap on “noneconomic damages for cases involving no physical harm or disfigurement.” They also found in 1997; Alaska has once again amended its non-economic damages reform. In this reform change, the State went into more detail addressing the different cases that could occur and sufficient compensation for an individual's pain and suffering. For a single death or injury over $400,000, they are compensated as much as their life expectancy multiplied by $8,000. In another case involving severe disfigurement or physical impairment exceeding $1,000,000, this is the individual's life expectancy (in years) multiplied by $25,000 (2). Many other states, including Alabama, California and Missouri, have established their own caps or systems for awarding damages for pain and suffering. These states have lower insurance and healthcare premiums, as well as cheaper goods and services. This benefits not only the state economy, but also the national economy. Reforms regardingNon-economic damages are not always seen as positive. David Hudson Junior reported in February 2012 that Tye Ward was riding his four-wheeler on a north-central Tennessee road with his cousin and her friend. Suddenly, he noticed Kaitlin Ward, his cousin and Maykayla Gummo down in a creek, 80 feet below where he was standing. Ward quickly pulled both his cousin and her friend out of the water to safety. Hudson explains the aftermath of the situation which included Gummo losing part of his arm, breaking his femur, and breaking his back. Hudson shares that Andrea May Gummo, Maykayla's mother, called Ward "her hero" for saving the teens (1). Just five months later, Andrea May Gummo sued Robert and Shelaena Ward, the owners of the four-wheeler, for her daughter's injuries. Since Gummo lived in Texas, the case Gummo v. Ward was filed in Tennessee. Accordingly, under Tennessee's Justice Act of 2011, "noneconomic damages are limited to $750,000 and punitive damages to double the amount of compensatory damages or $500,000" (1). With a cap on non-economic damages, the maximum amount Gummo could collect in compensation for his daughter's injuries is $1 million. His lawyer, however, did not stop there. They upheld the constitutionality of the cap, “arguing that the cap violates the right to trial by jury enshrined in the Tennessee Constitution” (1). The matter was taken to the Tennessee Supreme Court, and the remainder of the case remains in federal court. No conclusions have yet been declared. Placing a limit on noneconomic damages is not “unconstitutional,” nor does it revoke an individual's right to a jury trial. This is simply an argument made in court that induces the feeling that limits are illegal in the minds of juries when they make their final decisions. Once the constitutionality of a limit is challenged, the issue is taken to the state Supreme Court and a decision is made whether a limit should be retained, placed or changed. Hudson concludes that the caps are maintained in order to “promote the public interest in ensuring accessible and available health care and reducing the cost of malpractice insurance” (2). Whether a limit is deemed constitutional or not is based solely on the state Constitution and the evidence in the case that called it into question in the first place. Critics believe that people injured by the negligence or recklessness of others deserve to be compensated for the full extent of their injury. . Furthermore, they support the idea that “the jury system exists to compensate people who have been wronged” (Hudson 2). Legal threats to tort reform concern state constitutional law requirements, separation of powers, and the right to trial by jury. Hudson explains that “one must look at the exact language of individual state constitutions to identify the strongest arguments to be made within those particular state constitutions” (2). If the constitutionality of a limit on noneconomic damages is challenged in a state with its own Constitution, then the state Constitution must be thoroughly analyzed with the Sixth Amendment, also giving an individual the right to a trial by jury. According to news and magazine articles interpreting the progress of tort reform, noneconomic damages reforms are more common throughout the United States. In 2014, over thirty states implemented noneconomic damages reform. As a result, states that set limits on the premiums that can be collected reported higher insurance and health care premiumslow. Kip Viscusi and Patricia Born found that, in states that have caps on noneconomic losses, insurers experience 17 percent lower losses and premiums earned are also 6 percent lower (468). Viscusi and Born also found that premiums earned (in millions) and losses incurred (in millions) decreased with a cap on damages through 1991, as shown in the table (475). Therefore, states that have placed limits on noneconomic damages have a lower loss rate and earned premiums, making insurance more affordable. Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan also found that state-directed reforms reduced premiums by 8.4 percent in the first three years of the reform; it also reduces the probability that a doctor will be sued by 2.1% (99). Calling for a reform of non-economic damages is advantageous for the State but also for the per capita. States with reforms tend to have lower insurance rates and premiums and lead to more people being able to afford insurance, which, in turn, leads to an influx into the economy. Furthermore, the price of goods and services falls with a fixed limit on non-economic damages, so the economy will prosper because more people will spend money and earn money. Rubin and Shepherd conclude that when states place a cap on noneconomic damages, it can “lead to increases in the number of physicians in the state” (224). The presence of a greater number of doctors in a state helps to reduce healthcare premiums. As a result of reduced healthcare premiums and increased consumer satisfaction, there is a lower likelihood that a doctor will be sued. They further explain that, after tort reform, this leads to lower and more predictable liability costs which make it “cheaper and easier for potential tortfeasors to obtain insurance for their own liability (224). Furthermore, they interpret that if is cheaper to obtain liability insurance will result in lower prices "for both vaccines and prescription drugs" (224 Rubin and Shepherd confirm that, in a state that has adopted tort reform, emergency physicians believe that "direct reforms lead to increased cost growth). the supply of emergency medicine doctors by approximately 11.5%" (224). This benefits everyone, from state hospitals to private ones. If the prices of vaccines and prescription drugs fall, then more people will be able to afford the proper medications to treat their injuries; which, in turn, will reduce the number of lawsuits filed against individual doctors or for medical malpractice due to negligence or liability. There are many viable solutions for non-economic damages in tort law. In fact, more than thirty states have implemented non-economic damages reform. For example, in Hawaii, the maximum limit is $375,000 for physical pain and suffering. In Iowa, it is illegal for a motorist. a passenger or pedestrian obtain compensation for a motor vehicle accident during the act of a crime Idaho, the last reported reform dates back to 2003, establishing the maximum limit of $250,000 for personal injury cases (Sherman, Schwartz and McKinney 5-6). Many other states have also adopted noneconomic harm reforms. Not all states even have a limit; only limitations on what can be collected and who can and cannot get compensation for certain accidents. They are always a work in progress; no state can achieve success through the first reform. Many states changed their reforms once, while others changed their reforms as many as five times. States do not stop at non-economic damages. There are also reforms that fix or establish.