Save your rights

Issue 1 cuts access to redress

My family member very nearly died from an injury caused by the actions of others not too long ago, an injury that has left him permanently maimed.

If the proposed constitutional amendment Issue 1 on the November ballot passes, the above is all the state Legislature needs to know to decide how much compensation he should receive. Individual cases’ facts won’t matter.

A death, a maiming, harassment or abuse at the hands of another—they’re all worth no more than $500,000 in non-economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for each claimant. The measure would also require plaintiffs’ attorneys to restrict their fees to no more than one-third of the net recovery, without defining “net,” and allow the Legislature to make court rules—a major change from current practice.

In fact, Issue 1’s most pronounced effect would be to limit our ability to seek redress in court for injuries suffered, which is why I am urging a no vote. Only the judicial process, with its ability to consider individual case circumstances, can fairly determine damages. The drafters of the Bill of Rights thought our right to access the court system so important, they included it as the Seventh Amendment.

Issue 1 backers claim the 33.3 percent-of-recovery limit on attorneys’ fees would allow Arkansans like us to keep more of any injury case winnings. Well, we’d also keep more of our money if legislators capped auto mechanics’, dentists’, and tax preparers’ earnings, but they singled out attorneys. This provision’s real motivation is to make it much harder for people like us to find an attorney willing to take our case. Injury cases are grueling to prepare, and typically the lawyers only get paid if the plaintiff wins. With the Issue 1 award limits and no definition of “net amount of recovery,” attorneys may decline cases because they fear not recovering enough to cover their preparation time and costs. For people like us, the more time we spend finding a lawyer, the less time we have to prepare a case before the statute of limitations expires. The Legislature’s blatant interference in this aspect of the attorney-client relationship should be seen for the obstacle to legal system access that it is, and solidly rejected.

As if capping damages and attorneys’ earnings weren’t enough, Issue 1 would allow the Legislature to make rules for court functioning. Talk about having the fox oversee the henhouse. The legislative and judicial branches of government are separate for a reason—so they can act as checks and balances on each other. By setting court rules, the Legislature could bend the judicial system to favor the special interests supporting Issue 1.

These supporters are associations representing companies who would like to reduce their liability costs by having damages capped. Given the entities supporting Issue 1, and the measure’s entire thrust, it’s safe to assume any rule changes will favor these special interests, and not the average Arkansan.

Backers say Issue 1 will attract doctors to the state. Arkansans deserve better than care providers attracted by the ability to maim people relatively affordably, assuming we can attract providers to a largely rural state at all. In fact, one study found that patient safety falls after so-called tort reform, suggesting providers are less inclined to invest in measures to protect patients after they know the damages they may have to pay are limited. That puts us all at risk.

My family learned the hard way that potential plaintiff status strikes without warning, making us all potential plaintiffs. The imaginary benefits claimed by Issue 1 backers aren’t worth giving up your rights to access the judicial system to seek redress for injuries.

Vote no on Issue 1. The rights you save will be your own.

Little Rock resident Edith Paal is a potential plaintiff, just like every other Arkansan. She has no other dog in this fight. The opinions expressed here are entirely her own.