Most of that would not apply here, to be fair. They are extremely lax in the burden they apply so as to impose liability. You could do here, willy nilly, what you would get the ass sued off you for in the US. Also, generally speaking, US law is overly complicated and written like someone wishing to be "posh" would write the english language.

__________________
"......... we must sometimes listen to those who, consumed with zeal, have scant judgment or balance. To such ones the modern world is nothing but betrayal and ruin.........We feel bound to disagree with these prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity -- as though the world's end were imminent."

Its easy. Reforming Torts leads to Trots, which is obviously a socialist conspiracy.
Think I heard that on Fox.

That would be funny save it is the Republicans who wish for tort reform the most, as it costs 'business' money.

__________________
"......... we must sometimes listen to those who, consumed with zeal, have scant judgment or balance. To such ones the modern world is nothing but betrayal and ruin.........We feel bound to disagree with these prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity -- as though the world's end were imminent."

Just shows how devious the Trots are...

The Trots are delighted to take money from lawyers who are against tort reform. Many of the leading attorney Dems were beneficiaries of huge class action cases e.g. John Edwards.

Are you of the opinion that THE reason the Dems are against tort reform is that they, as lawyers, benefit financially from medical negligence cases? Or are you leaving room for the possibility that the Dems would honestly rather give the benefit of the doubt to patients who, they believe, are often more vulnerable and more in need of protection than doctors? You need not agree with the Dems' priorities but an assumption of good faith rather than cynical self-interest on their part would be a superior starting point for any discussion.

I know relatively little about the US experience with medical malpractice litigation, except that the US generally has a more pro-litigation "compo culture". It is also true that legislative reform would probably be highly politically charged, and therefore is unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The problem is that for many (such as yourself it seems), "reform" simply means weakening the rights of patients as against doctors, which may be a good thing in some circumstances but is certainly not good in all circumstances. Patients need protection against negligent doctors, and malpractice litigation has in the past led to positive reforms in the medical profession. A compromise has to be found. I think that over here a (relatively) satisfactory compromise has been found, but that only came after many years of judicial wrangling and not by way of some quick-fix legislative solution.

__________________
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.

No

Well, that's liamfoley's characteristic brand of open-minded, constructive discussion for you.

__________________
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.