In the last few years, virtually all states have passed tort reform measures. The impetus behind this effort is the assumed "crisis" in the liability insurance area, characterized by dramatically higher premiums, reductions in coverage, and sometimes refusal to cover certain activities. While there is heated debate about whether a crisis actually exists, business and insurance lobbying groups have persuaded legislatures to pass reform bills. Common reform measures include limits on the amount ofnoneconomic damages (such as damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress) that can be recovered in a torts suit, and limits on punitive damage amounts and the way they are awarded. Certain defendants such as doctors, the skiing industry, and municipalities have gained limits on their liability and restrictions on the way a case against them can be handled. Sometimes these reform measures are combined with regulation of insurers to help control or reduce premium increases and policy cancellations. In somestatesthe courts have held the reform measures to be unconstitutional under the state constitution because they unfairly limit plaintiffs' right to seek redress in the courts for their injuries. The debate about the need to reform tort law is unlikely to end soon, and legislatures can be expected to continue to be active on the insurance and tort reform front.

Do you believe that tort reform is necessary or do reform measures unfairly limit a plaintiff's right to seek compensation in the Courts for his or her injuries caused by the negligence of another?Before taking a position, consider the issue from multiple perspectives (professional; business owner; insurance company; injured individual, etc.). Does tort reform benefit or hinder the efforts of small business owners? Please provide the basis for your position.