That being said and since we also captured that information on the report forms, I believe that in over 1,000 jury verdicts and judgments that I read there were only two times that a remittitur was issued by a judge. It is far more likely that an appeal will be filed; however less than 10% of those appeals resulted in an appellate court decision and less than 1% of the jury verdicts advanced to where a decision was made by the Texas Supreme Court.
I think that the mix of industries in Texas vs. Arkansas might affect the need for damage caps also. Obviously the petrochemical industry dwarfs that of Arkansas and the claims against Lone Star Steel will probably continue until after I'm dead. There are also more product liability claims since manufacturing is more prominent in Texas than in Arkansas.
Now for the part of my response where I might appear crass or unsympathetic (which is also ridiculous since I've been the claimant in two auto accidents):
Texas has a similar situation as Arkansas regarding nursing homes with inadequate staffing. However, most juries also realize that those plaintiffs are also elderly so the amounts awarded for non-economic damages will tend to be smaller. The clients at nursing homes deal with the consequences of the injuries for a shorter period of time than the general population. The awards for loss of consortium and parental guidance will also be decreased compared to someone who is younger and will have to endure those injuries for longer.
The trucking industry claims should be similar in both states. I agree that there are companies that abuse the public by placing unsafe drivers out there. I definitely support exemplary damages being awarded in those court cases. The cap should be set at a level such that it is an effective deterrent, but I don't believe that a single court award should cause a company to go bankrupt. I don't know the cap amount that is appropriate for Arkansas or any other state, but I lean towards limiting the award to a percentage of gross receipts. Thus, if similar conduct is exhibited by that company then a series of those court awards should eliminate the repetitive bad actors. As far as non-economic damages are concerned, I think it is reasonable to question whether an award of $5 million for pain and suffering is justifiable for someone who literally survives only a few seconds after an accident and the family was awarded damages elsewhere in the jury charge. No amount of money is going to bring back that life.
As far as whether the people on juries are too stupid to make an appropriate award, I agree that they get it correct more often than not. Yet there were some jury awards that made me shake my head because the awards were absurd considering the age of the injured party, the circumstances leading to the injury, and the type of injuries involved. The jury awards from the Rio Grande Valley tended to be among the largest in Texas. I don't know whether that was because the juries were foolish or if they were extremely shrewd knowing that huge settlements from insurance companies would create a ripple effect in the community. The one thing that I do know is that the litigious environment and excessive court awards resulted in redlining for that region of the state which isn't good for anyone.
To the extent that companies do need some certainty as to the business environment within a state, I do understand why they want tort reforms. Those considerations also need to be taken in conjunction with the effect that it will have on other social programs. Tort reform should not be used to "socialize" costs from the private sector into the public sector. However, I do believe that reasonable damage caps can be set that are fair to both sides and that do not impose a burden on other parties not involved in the claim.
= new reply since forum marked as read