A push to limit lawsuits in Georgia is getting increasing blowback
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp 's priority bill to limit lawsuits and large jury verdicts has gotten increasing pushback after an initial boost in support as the legislative session enters its final weeks.
Crowds of business owners and doctors swarmed the Capitol to back Kemp when he announced the proposal, also called tort reform. Now, people who have sued businesses are rallying as Democrats argue the bill is a handout to businesses and insurance companies.
And a number of House Republicans remain skeptical, even though House Speaker Jon Burns said he is confident it will pass.
'There are two Republicans that are trial lawyers, but I've heard a more broad group of people express concerns with the bill as currently written," said Rep. Trey Kelley, a Cedartown Republican.
Millions of dollars have gone into lobbying for and against Kemp's package. Here are some reasons why people are concerned.
Victims sound alarms
Kemp's bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn't provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
'Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,' Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
'Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,' said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Kemp has signed several laws backed by his wife, Marty Kemp, to crack down on sex trafficking.
'The governor would not sign any legislation that would roll back our efforts in that area,' said Kemp spokesperson Garrison Douglas.
Would lawsuits slow, and should they?
A man in a wheelchair testified at a news conference last week that he was paralyzed after people attacked him at an apartment complex that ignored pleas for stronger security. A lawyer and a mother shared stories of children who were abused at child care and recreational facilities where they said staff turned a blind eye to abuse.
Lawyers said the bill would thwart many of those lawsuits, which have helped pay for health care and therapy.
Republican Senate President pro tem John Kennedy, a lawyer from Macon, has insisted the bill wouldn't stop survivors of abuse and sex trafficking from suing. Douglas, Kemp's spokesperson, said it is 'balanced and commonsense' and "doesn't prevent any Georgian who has been wronged from getting the justice they deserve.'
Business owners, trucking companies and others say they are threatened by expensive court verdicts or settlements.
'I've heard many times over the last several weeks, 'This is really about big corporations versus the little guy,'' said Charles Tarbutton, a member of an influential Georgia family and CEO of Sandersville-based trucking company B-H Transfer. 'I urge the members of the House to reject that fallacy. I speak on behalf of those 75,000 truck drivers in Georgia. We are the little guys.'
Opponents want proof
Trial lawyers are worried that other changes would drag out trials and delay preparation. Lawyers and doctors dispute whether fair compensation is the face value of a medical bill or only the portion an individual directly paid.
Opponents also question whether the problems the bill claims to address exist, and if it would actually solve them.
For example, doctors have said unfair lawsuits make it hard to recruit talent to rural areas and lead them to administer unnecessary medical tests. They also say they're getting slammed by rising medical malpractice premiums. In an analysis for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Northwestern University Professor Bernard Black said it's difficult to recruit doctors outside of urban areas nationwide.
Kemp has said his plan will stabilize insurance rates, but many experts say the evidence for that is shaky.
'It's the same talking points, same manufactured crisis, same players that come in,' said Rep. Tanya Miller, a lawyer and Atlanta Democrat. 'The problem with the anecdotal evidence is that's not actually how you study a complex problem.'
__
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk drops 'really big bomb' with huge claim about Donald Trump
Donald Trump and Elon Musk's bromance has come to a spectacular and petty end as the Tesla boss dropped what he has called a huge "bomb" about the President. Taking to his X (Twitter) account, the richest man in the world said it was "Time to drop the really big bomb" before claiming that Donald Trump "is in the Epstein files". Trump's name was released as previously sealed court documents were made public last year, in which he was named as an associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. There is no suggestion he knew of any crimes or participated in any criminal behaviour. The South African billionaire, who bought his way into Washington by pumping millions into Trump's campaign, has taken to X to add more fuel to the pair raging between the former pals. Once Trump's right hand man, Musk left his special government position as the Department of Government Efficiency - specially set up by the President for the Tesla CEO who seemed to be longing for a top job in Washington - a week ago. The fall out between Musk and Trump has gotten out of control in just a few days, spiralling into a series of petty online fights. The Tesla boss, on X, wrote: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate."
Rhyl Journal
34 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why the reaction to Trump's travel ban is different this time
Many of Donald Trump's critics may have become so inured to the treadmill of iniquities that his second presidency has brought, that a long-expected travel ban announced against citizens of a dozen countries failed to register the same intense shock and outrage as his similar move made during his first presidency. Of course, there was condemnation. Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator from California, accused the president of 'bigotry', while Chris Murphy, his Democratic colleague from Connecticut, suggested the timing may have been designed to deflect attention from the negative economic impact of his 'Big Beautiful Bill' currently wending it way through Congress. But the denunciations seemed to carry a rote, lost-in-the-noise quality. It is easy to forget the storm of opprobrium that initially greeted the proposal for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' when then candidate Trump first made it nearly a decade ago. Even some of his fellow Republicans on the primary campaign trail at the time denounced the idea of a 'Muslim ban' as 'unhinged'. The context then was a spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks, first in Europe and then, in December 2015, in the California city of San Bernardino, where a radicalized husband and wife shot and killed 14 people at a health workers' Christmas party. The policy met fierce legal and popular resistance after Trump tried to impose it immediately after taking office in January 2017, targeting seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Chaotic scenes ensued, as protesters descended on international US airports. Only after the administration retooled the policy following protracted courtroom fights was it able to implement it – only for Joe Biden to rescind it in 2021 as 'a stain on our national conscience'. The immediate and narrow backdrop to the latest ban is similar: an attack in Boulder, Colorado, this time by an Egyptian citizen, on an event in support of hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said in a video message announcing the policy. 'We don't want them.' Yet the broader context is vastly different – and illustrative of how successful the president has been in shifting the overton window of political acceptability compared with eight years ago. This new ban is taking place against a backdrop of creeping authoritarianism, brutal government cuts and an ideological attack on civic institutions ranging from universities to scientific and cultural organisations. Effective legal challenges to the travel ban this time round seem much less likely, experts believe. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University law center, told the New York Times. The length of time taken in preparing the restrictions – in contrast with the hastily imposed 2017 ban – and the varied character of the 19 countries singled out make it less susceptible than its predecessor, Vladeck said. Strikingly, Egypt – a signatory to the 1979 Camp David peace accords with Israel and a recipient of US military aid – is absent from the list of countries affected, strongly suggesting that last weekend's attack was merely a pretext for a move already in the works. Of the 12 included on the main ban list, some are predominantly Muslim, but five – Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Myanmar, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea – are not. The others are Iran, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen. Of course, all are non-white and part of the developing world. Additionally, less stringent restrictions have been imposed on another seven countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Laos, Togo, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Turkmenistan – but only the last two have Muslim majorities. Rather than being based in Islamophobia, the latest crackdown is playing out on a wider canvas of xenophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment, manifested most visibly in Trump's drive to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. Some groups, namely Venezuelans and Haitians, have already lost temporary protected status in a move that has been upheld by the courts. It is also happening in tandem with a prohibition issued against Harvard University from enrolling foreign students as Trump resorts to all levers available in an effort to prevail in a power struggle with the world's wealthiest higher education institution. Yet the ban has roots in prejudices that emerged early in Trump's first term, when he railed at an Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders against immigration from 'shithole countries', an unflattering description which, according to the New York Times, included Haiti. 'Why do we want people from Haiti here?' Trump said in the January 2018 meeting, when told that they were among those who could benefit from a proposed immigration bill. At the same gathering, the president lamented the failure to woo immigrants from white European countries like Norway. At an earlier meeting, he complained – based on a policy paper given to him by Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff – that 15,000 Haitians had entered the country since his inauguration, adding that 'they all have Aids'. Similar complaints were issued against the entry of 2,500 Afghans. The anti-Haitian animus re-emerged in last year's presidential election campaign. Trump, in a debate with Kamala Harris, his Democratic presidential opponent, issued his notorious 'they're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs' accusation against a Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, Ohio, based on a false internet rumor that police had previously officially denied. That backdrop will surely condemn Trump in the court of public opinion, whatever rulings the judiciary may decide. Amid a chorus of condemnation from Democrats, many of whom compared this ban to his first 'Muslim ban', Amnesty International captured the more universal principle at play. 'Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' the organization said. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' Even if judges issue future rulings upholding the policy, it seems a fitting judgment likely to stand the test of time, if not the strict letter of the law.
