[tw]

It is wrong to say that limiting torts is the solution. PA set themselves up for massive payouts in malpractice because juries are not permitted anything in the jury room but their emotions.

I was appauled that we were not permitted to have testimony, or the court records, or even the judge's charge (how we are ordered to come to a verdict) in that jury room. Everything was based upon what little we could remember - followed by an auction for how high we would run the settlement up. Why did we go with the plantiff? Because she was the one who suffered the most emotion. Then we simply started bidding so that a $100,000 settlement quickly rose into the $millions. One would be amazed how in but minutes, then entire settlement was bid up to massive sums. The price went up without a single fact or reason presented for the bidding.

So I asked the judge afterwards why we are denied information. She said the State Supreme Court had decided that if written information was available to the jury, then then those who could understand those written facts would 'run' the jury. Manipulate the others based upon possession of information that the others did not comprehend.

We could not even remember the many points in that judge's charge to the jury. So we made up a list of point based upon a compromise as to what we though she had said.

We don't need tort reform. We need to provide juries with sufficient information. Without facts, then only emotion makes decisions. Therein lies the real need for tort reform.