As a practicing attorney for over 30 years, I can tell you there is very little wrong with the tort system as it existed in the 1960s. Since then the system has been rigged to permit spurious class actions, non-scientific or pseudo-scientific evidence and a general diminishing between the rule of causal connection between the alleged tort and the harm. Additionally, most companies are able to be sued in multiple jurisdictions. This allows the tort lawyer to select a jurisdiction (usually urban areas) where judges and juries are prone to awarding huge verdicts.
The tort system was originally designed to compensate victims for losses caused by the negligence of another. Activist courts, over the last 40 years, have determined that the system could also be used to enhance consumer safety. The theory is that rather than merely compensating a victim for his or her loss, the system should also be used to force a manufacturer to modify its product to make it more safe. This goal is responsible for many of the abuses and problems we see today in the tort system.
The theory is that rather than merely compensating a victim for his or her loss, the system should also be used to force a manufacturer to modify its product to make it more safe. This goal is responsible for many of the abuses and problems we see today in the tort system.
The purpose of Tort law has always been to shift the economic cost to the person that caused it, rather than having the injured bear it, in order to deter bad behavior. There has always been a moral component to tort law, with immoral conduct being deterred by associating a cost with it. Torts, rather than implementing a subjective morality, find their basis in an objective standard of conduct.