QUESTION 5: JURY AWARDS

Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 | 1:21 a.m.

Question 5 would stop the Legislature from imposing any limits on the amount of money a jury can award in lawsuits and would prohibit the Legislature from imposing a cap on fees earned by lawyers.

The question, "Stop Frivolous Lawsuits and Protect Your Legal Rights Act," is backed by Nevada's trial lawyers. It is in response to the medical-malpractice debate and the change in state law. The law limits the amount of pain and suffering damages a jury can award in many cases.

Gail Tuzzolo, who helped write the question, said this "will stop frivolous lawsuits from clogging our courts and costing taxpayers money."

But Jim Denton, a spokesman for a group opposed to Question 5, said the initiative will make it more difficult for a judge to find an attorney guilty of filing or pursuing a frivolous suit. "It is misleading and disingenuous."

Question 5 is one of three that have lawyers, doctors and insurance companies fighting -- Questions 3 and 4 also deal with medical malpractice. If approved by voters this year and again in 2006, Question 5 would change the state constitution to permit the Legislature to repeal the 2002 law that puts a $350,000 cap on pain and suffering in a medical-malpractice lawsuit.

It would add a provision saying, "No law shall be enacted which limits a person's right to recovery for all harm and losses caused to them as a result of the negligent or wrongful conduct of another person."

The proposed amendment also would allow judges to punish lawyers who are found to have brought a frivolous lawsuit.

Tuzzolo says many states have such provisions in their constitutions.

Denton said enactment of Question 5 would "make Nevada the lawsuit capital of the world," where there could be no limit on damages awarded. He cites the McDonald's restaurant case where a woman was awarded $2.7 million when she spilled hot coffee on herself. If this amendment is passed, Denton said it was most likely that judgment, if made in Nevada, would have stood.

Tuzzolo said that judgment was reduced to $670,000 by a judge. The present common law allowing such reductions would remain in effect, she said.

She said this initiative does not take away from the 2002 law limiting medical-malpractice damages. But it gives the right to the Legislature to repeal that law, which limited pain and suffering awards to $350,000.

Denton said this initiative is about "dismantling the medical-malpractice laws." He said this issue is on the ballot to do one thing: "to bring significant harm to Nevada's legal system and raise the cost for the consumer."

Question 3, which changes state law, would limit attorney fees in medical malpractice. But Question 5, which is a constitutional amendment and would need to pass twice, would overturn that limitation.

Denton said passage of Question 5 would discourage insurance companies from coming to Nevada because of the unlimited jury awards. That could hurt doctors, who need medical-malpractice insurance, he said.

"Tell me why personal injury attorneys would want to spend their money to qualify a petition to allow them to file fewer lawsuits," Denton said. "I would like to know the answer."

archive