Personal Injury Lawsuits

Way back when, my friend, Bob Naylor, was one of the creators of the "Napkin Deal". This was the negotiation that changed the way deep pockets personal injury lawsuits were litigatd.

Dan Walters Opinion: California’s Personal Injury Lawyers See Legislative Opening for More Lawsuits

To Capitol insiders, the term “tort wars” is shorthand for decades of political wrangling over the rules governing lawsuits for personal injuries — who can sue and collect damages for which actions.

The rules are a mix of legislation and appellate court interpretations, and with untold billions of dollars at stake, lawyers who specialize in personal injury suits and their political allies, such as unions and consumer advocates, clash constantly with business groups and insurers.

The former seek to expand opportunities to sue and the latter resist such expansions and occasionally try to narrow the scope of liability.

Over the decades, the conflict has generated some memorable events. In 1975, for instance, a newly inaugurated Gov. Jerry Brown signed a landmark law, dubbed MICRA, that imposed tight limits on “pain and suffering” damages in medical malpractice cases. Next year, nearly a half-century later, California voters will decide whether the $250,000 cap should remain in place or be lifted, the latest of many attempts to undo the 1975 law.

A particularly colorful episode occurred in 1987, when lobbyists for personal injury lawyers and rival interests negotiated an armistice, finalized at Frank Fat’s restaurant in Sacramento with its provisions jotted down on a napkin. The “napkin deal,” as it came to be known, reduced liability for harmful products, such as cigarettes, and gave lawyers higher fees in medical malpractice cases.