This case from Kentucky is an excellent example of why I do not think tort reform is necessary. The poster child for tort reform is the aggrieved doctor who just wants to practice normal medicine who can no longer afford insurance and must close his practice because of greedy trial lawyers. I do not believe that doctor exists. The safeguard necessary to protect doctors (and, let’s not forget what’s important here, their insurers) from runaway lawyers and juries is… lawyers and juries who pay attention to the evidence.
As is usual for reporting on medical malpractice, sensationalism triumphs over good reporting and you have to read the entire article, to the very end, before you understand why the verdict was what it was.