Abstract
I. Introduction The existing synergy driving tort reform across the United States is grounded upon the economic utility of special-interest groups. Consequently, it is of little surprise that it has generated defense-oriented, biased public policy outcomes. 1 Substantively, it defies the rational constructs underlying common law jurisprudence as well as the fundamental economic principles upon which our great commercial republic thrives. To reiterate, "proponents of tort reform welcome legislative and judicial mandates that challenge, if not eliminate, critical components of the pricing mechanism of the perfectly competitive marketplace of which such proponents would unequivocally and zealously object if implemented in their relevant commercial markets." 2 Captured and fueled by special interests, legislative bodies continually respond to tort reform proponents by replacing tried and tested common law principles governed by the rule of reason with wealth- transferring, arbitrary statutory regulation. The biased and arbitrary nature of tort reform's assault on the rule of reason and the rational actor model is best exemplified in the recent legislative initiatives seeking to eliminate the collateral source rule. Arguments in favor of eliminating the collateral source rule ignore well established and long-settled tort principles of compensatory damages, 3 indemnity, 4 restitution 5 and deterrence. 6 Moreover, and more importantly, such arguments ignore fundamental micro-economic theory, including the concept of opportunity costs, a precept which has long been accepted among economists and utilized in conventional cost-benefit analysis. The misguided, the uninformed, as well as the self-interested who favor the abolition of the collateral source ...