by Neil S. Siskind, Esq.

               When investors around the world put their capital in American assets, they do so for two overriding reason: the predictability of the currency, and the rule of law. Because investors believe that the United States will use all measures to protect the Dollar to the best of its ability, and because contract disputes are resolved in courts of law by juries of our peers largely based on existing statutes and past case holdings, the US is the safest place to invest capital and engage in business. Both of the aforesaid elements allow for social stability. 

               Additionally, beyond economics, US citizens function in a world of relative predictability and social stability because people’s actions are held to moral and legal standards making us safe to walk down the streets and consume products and services. Criminal laws protect us from intentional and reckless harm caused to us, but we can’t go around putting people in jail for acting stupidly, irresponsibly or unreasonably, but without intent to harm (or at least the knowing that a likelihood of harm could result from very reckless actions). So, in order to promote social order and personal safety, we punish such people financially. Thus, the body of law known as negligence law (or more generally, Tort law) was established. 

               When a person fails to act in a reasonable manner and causes harm to another without intent to do so, he may be determined to be negligent by a finder of fact (most often-a jury) in a civil case. If people were allowed to run amuck and act in unreasonable non-criminal ways that may cause another harm, people would be afraid to leave their homes. If men were allowed to throw water balloons from city windows to watch them explode on the sidewalk, if landlords allowed ice to build up in winter on apartment house steps, or if auto mechanics could put lesser car parts in your car to save a buck, all without recourse from consequential harm, then no one could rely on a consistent, orderly way of life. On the other hand, if people were thrown in jail for these things when they simply acted unreasonably or stupidly rather than maliciously or with intent to harm, then people would be frightened to make any false move lest they end up in prison. The proper resolution is civil law recourse where a person is entitled to financial remuneration equal to the amount of loss they suffered from an unreasonable act.

               The medical industry, like any other industry, is subject to civil law recourse for negligence against consumers. In the medical services field this is known as Medical Malpractice.  The societal philosophy of civil law recourse likewise prevails in this field.  In the case of doctors, a mistake can instantly change the course of a person’s life.   In order for a society to flourish there must be recourse for consumers where a harmful mistake is unreasonably made, based on the medical community’s standards. Unless an act is intentionally harmful, we can’t throw doctors in jail for an error. As such, a Medical Malpractice lawsuit is the recourse provided to protect patients and promote social order.  

               To have an orderly productive society it takes systemic trust. Trust comes from the rule of law where people know that product and service providers have a standard of care to meet or exceed so that the products and services can be trusted not to do harm to them as consumers.  Trust also comes from social interactions having a legal standard of reasonable care. These systemic expectations create a working relationship for society. People who attempt to be productive and profitable and people who seek to engage others in everyday social intercourse should not, short of intentional or reckless behaviors that cause harm, be thrown in jail for harms caused. But they must have standards of behavior to meet- and recourse against them if they don’t- in order for the American social contract to endure.