Short on the specifics

Trent Garner, my state senator, published a guest column in your paper under the heading “tort reform.” It references a Legislature-sponsored amendment to the Arkansas Constitution known as Issue 1, which will be on the ballot in November. Senator Garner characterized supporters of Issue 1 as hardworking Arkansans, and opponents as ambulance-chasing lawyers. His piece was long on demonizing the opposition and short on explaining the specifics of Issue 1.

For instance, Garner failed to mention that Issue 1 limits recovery for non-economic damages (pain and suffering, mental anguish, mental and emotional distress over the loss of a loved one) to $500,000. This limitation applies in each and every conceivable circumstance. So, if a truck jumps a curb, striking and killing an 8-year-old girl on a bike, or a 78-yearold grandmother dies of neglect in a nursing home, their families are not allowed to recover a dime more than $500,000. Now, who do you suppose benefits from this provision in Issue 1: hardworking Arkansas families or the trucking and nursing home industries?

To make Issue 1 more palatable to his constituents, Garner claims that Arkansans essentially pay a “lawsuit tax” under our current system, which costs the average citizen $900 per year. Really? With roughly three million people living in Arkansas that works out to be about $2.7 billion a year. I would like to see the study Garner relied on to come up with that jaw-dropping figure. It sounds like bull hockey to me.

I hope that Arkansans will study the implications of Issue 1, listen to the arguments for and against it, tune out those who would appeal to our emotions and baser instincts, and vote on Issue 1 based on its merits or lack thereof. In the “whatever-it’s-worth” department, I’ve been practicing law in Trent Garner’s Senate district for almost 50 years. I know the lawyers here pretty well, and I’ve never seen one chase an ambulance.

GENE BRAMBLETT

Camden