Mr. Simon:

Thanks for a well-reasoned statement on the tort "reform" issue. It is refreshing to see someone with some conservative influence in his
community (no matter how great or small since I'm not familiar with the reach of your Website) take an objective and fair look at a subject with the potential to harm us all. While some reform makes sense in all walks of life, including the legal system, our present tort system works fairly well.

Do jurors chosen to "sit in the box" deserve to be better compensated? Absolutely. Those struck the first day can probably still get by on $20.00. This would not unduly burden the taxpayer but would alleviate some of the problem with jurors taking a hit in the wallet for a week's worth of service, more or less.

One final thought that you might want to look into. I have read several rather harsh critiques in the Macon Telegraph recently written by people who should, and probably do, know better. It seems that they find all verdicts to actually be a consumer tax of sorts. In other words, a shameless appeal to people who do not understand any of this and who will actually believe that a million dollar verdict, or even one for $10,000.00, comes directly out of his or her own pocket.

A $250,000.00 cap would in fact lead directly to such taxation. Whereas someone with a brain injury needing care for life like the little boy in the Creative Loafing article will be covered thanks to the insurance in place on the negligent doctor, had this situation been subject to a cap and the economic portion of the recovery small, social security disability would have been left paying millions over many years for this child's support.

As it is, I would expect that a structured settlement was put in place that benefits the child, his parents, the insurance company and, gasp, the taxpayer. Thanks again for having the courage to look at this issue openly. I appreciate it.

Phil Brown
O'Neal, Brown & Clark, P.C.
Macon, GA