Page 27 begins here
steps and missteps. In Chapter One, the authors make the point that tort law has always followed commercial and
political exigencies, but they create an overview more strategic than synthetic, in part and ironically because
their survey was too comprehensive. They succeed in showing how past and current tort regimes have resembled the
interests of privileged groups, a valuable insight especially for undergraduates. Their success will raise, for
many readers, questions about how current retrenchments might be defeated if tort reforms tend to favor the privileged
and if "progressive torts" called forth retrenchments. If the primary, and often latent, social good
of tort law is to enable underdogs to get something resembling justice that they could not get elsewhere, why expect
bigger dogs to desist from fighting that justice on more advantageous terrain in the name of profits, privileges,
and alternative conceptions of justice?
Moreover, if legislators and office-seekers have been too gullible in accepting tort reform arguments to reverse
progressive developments (and the authors deftly argue that politicos have), they nonetheless have responded to
at least some genuine problems. Readers will encounter little indication that such is the case in Chapter Two,
"The Human Face of Tort Law." Tort reformers have often slandered and stymied innocent victims but have
done so on behalf of other victims, not all of them corporate malefactors or other elites. Counting benefits of
progressive tort regimes in states and nation while discounting costs of the civil law system is not likely to
motivate even sympathetic readers to pursue policies to counter retrenchment, so Koenig and Rustad's defense may
persuade readers that tort reformers have been guilty of false and fallacious argumentation but may not convince
many readers that Koenig or Rustad have behaved much better than those whom they
critique. If so, the best that the authors have accomplished is to hang the jury. Skepticism and inertia favor
the side currently on the offensive, so this defense amounts to a temporizing action at best.
The chapters that address gender justice, patients' rights, and product safety prove as partial as Chapter Two.
Each effectively raises overlooked issues. Chapter Three shows how differences and disadvantages related to sex
condition civil law in general and torts in particular. Chapter Four demystifies myths about medical malpractice.
Chapter Five stretches a few guidelines for manufacturing safe and honest products into Ten Commandments for avoiding
products-liability suits and judgments. However, each chapter overlooks issues that tort reformers must and should
raise. Chapter Three celebrates compensation of victims of silicone implants without acknowledging the judgments
of epidemiologists and judges that such compensation hinged on poor science or no science. In Chapter Four the
authors cite the Harvard Study to show that perhaps one out of one hundred victims of documented malpractice sued
(pp. 296-97), but they do not admit that the same study revealed three or four unwarranted medical malpractice
suits for every one the study's experts found to be warranted. The authors supplant reformers'
horror stories about frivolous litigation and outrageous results with their Decalogue (pp. 184-204), but they should
have admitted alarming exceptions to each of their Ten Commandments.
If each of the central chapters--Two through Five--fails to consider cases from multiple perspectives, the authors
did demolish many of the canards of tort reform publicists. The authors have no room for systematic case studies
when debunking
Page 28 begins here
advertising and propaganda but transcended reformers' anecdotes and show that the case method?which some tort reformers
have fatuously equated to anecdotes?improve on telling tales. This accomplishment should not be underestimated.
Once undergraduates and other readers learn that they have been bamboozled by legends or legerdemain, corporate
Goliaths may find it harder to play David before houses of legislators or panels of jurors. Having documented harrowing
omissions and commissions that constitute true horror stories?that is, stories that truly horrify and have the
additional virtue of being true?the authors have provided readers prophylaxis against reformers' blowsy rhetoric
as well as illustrations of the good of tort law.
In parrying tort reform and demonstrating the continuing services of tort law, Professors Koenig and Rustad indulge
in blowsy rhetoric for which they rightly excoriated tort reformers. Their own fallacies and fictions both leave
Koenig and Rustad liable to the criticisms that they have leveled against others and latently exonerate tort reformers,
who are entitled to proceed with little of evidence or documentation of academic studies.
For instance, the authors informed readers that the supreme courts of Illinois and Ohio have overturned state tort
reform statutes after more accurate accounts of "the McDonald's Coffee Lady" case became available (p.
6). However, their prose will lead unwary readers to conclude that straightening out that notorious anecdote led
the courts' majorities to the conclusion that the statutes had to fall, a dazzling example of the post hoc ergo
propter hoc fallacy. Seventy-one pages later, the authors clarify the constitutional bases on which each court
proceeded.
Instructors will likely differ as to which is worse: for insurance companies and public relations outfits to offer
utterly undocumented advertisements or for academics to debunk such advertisements with citation to one website
(p. 75, n 38). What seems less debatable is that casual reliance on the World Wide Web is widespread enough among
students. The authors should not have exemplified or encouraged such feeble documentation.
Even instructors who concur with the claim that, "Tort reform is a code phrase for one-sided, liability limiting
statutes that favor corporate interests" (p. 77) owe it to their students to show students why so many Americans
fear frivolous lawsuits and root for tort reforms. Tort reform may have protection or prosecution of corporate
interests as a major latent function, but that is scarcely its only purpose. What patent functions or proclaimed
motivations "sell" tort reform(s) to voters or representatives? Koenig and Rustad are certainly within
their rights to expose unacknowledged motives behind tort reform as well as unrecognized benefits from tort law,
but to scant the acknowledged motives of tort reformers as well as the recognized costs of tort law is to construct
a brief. As with casual citations to the web, so with one-sided argumentation--most students need no more instruction
in the caricature of opponents.
In sum, IN DEFENSE OF TORT LAW is a reasonably safe read for students who are up to speed but should not be opened
by students who are inexperienced scholars.
**************************************************************************
Copyright 2002 by the author, William Haltom.