Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Business group fights suit bill

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published March 2, 2007

TALLAHASSEE - The leader of a probusiness group Thursday attacked legislation he said would undo a law passed last year to prevent defendants in lawsuits from having to pay for damages caused by other parties.

Judges and juries, under the new law, no longer can order defendants with "deep pockets" to pay most or all of a verdict when other defendants are unable to pay their shares regardless of how much each had been at fault.

This year's legislation (HB 733 and SB 1558) also would bar the practice, supported by business interests, of considering the faulted parties not included in a lawsuit when deciding how to divide responsibility for paying damages.

"It would jeopardize last year's reform," Florida Justice Reform Institute president William Large said at a news conference.

Paul Jess, general counsel for the Florida Justice Association, which represents plaintiffs' attorneys, disagreed.

"We would love to do that, but this legislation does not do that," Jess said in an interview.

Jess said his group is supporting the bills because they would end "false accusations against parties who are not in the courtroom to defend themselves."

He said defendants now can point the finger at innocent people or businesses to avoid paying for their wrongdoing, leaving victims or taxpayers holding the bag.

The legislation, instead, would allow blame, and financial responsibility, to be assessed only against defendants who are sued.

That means a plaintiff could "cherry-pick" and sue only defendants with deep pockets instead of other guilty parties who cannot afford to pay, Large said. He said a jury, often sympathetic to victims, then likely would make the sued defendants pay all damages.

Large said that's unfair.

"Pay your percentage of fault - no more, no less," he said.

Jess said defendants still could file third-party actions to bring others they believe should share the blame into a lawsuit.

Large said that would be an unnecessary burden on defendants.

[Last modified March 2, 2007, 00:55:16]