The high legal costs paid by Pennsylvania employers stunt the Commonwealth’s economic growth and job creation. We need to inject fairness, common sense and personal responsibility into our courts by continuing to reform our antiquated legal system.

Repeal of Joint and Several Liability – Pennsylvania’s allowance of recovery under the theory of joint and several liability holds every defendant found even one percent liable in a lawsuit responsible for the entire verdict. This is not only unfair but it actually encourages more litigation as plaintiffs go in search of “deep pockets” (ability to pay) when filing their lawsuits. Often, these deep pockets end up paying the entire award even if they were only marginally responsible. The legislation would ensure that Pennsylvania adheres to the basic premise that liability equal fault and a defendant should only pay their fair share.

Protect Innocent Sellers – Sellers, who are not manufacturers, are frequently sued even though all they did was sell a product later claimed to have been defective. This is unfair and the costs of litigation are passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices. The legislation would ensure that retailers who do not alter a product would not be liable if a product is defective.

Statute of Repose in Product Liability Actions – Too many product liability suits are brought many years after a product was manufactured and worked without incident. This leads to unfairness, difficulties in defense and higher insurance costs for all of us. The legislation would establish a 15-year time limit (statute of repose) for most products. Specifically exempted are actions alleging a physical illness the evidence of which did not appear in less than 15 years after the first exposure to the product (i.e., tobacco or asbestos).

Caps on Non-Economic Damages – Damages for non-economic losses (i.e., pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other intangible injuries) involve no direct economic loss and have no precise value. It is very difficult for juries to assign a dollar value to these losses, given the minimal guidance they customarily receive from the court. As a result, these awards tend to be erratic and, because of the highly charged environment of personal injury trials, excessive. The legislation would establish the first step in the process to amend the Constitution to allow the General Assembly to debate limits for non-economic damages in all civil litigation cases.

Limit Recovery of Punitive Damages – Unreasonable threats of ruinous punitive damages needlessly prolong litigation, stifle job creation and business expansion, and have become a too routine technique used to secure unwarranted settlements. The legislation would help limit the unreasonable threats by setting strict standards for the imposition of punitive damages and limiting the total amount of punitive damages that may be awarded without taking away the ability to assess punitive damages on those who deserve to be punished.