Point of Law reports that the Pacific Research Institute issued a report in May that "ranks all 50 states in terms of relative tort burdens and relative tort reforms."  You can read the report here. 

The whole concept of “tort reform” has always intrigued me.  While the phrase “tort reform” would appear to be simply a description of a legislative program, it exudes an imprimatur of righteousness.  Who could oppose “tort reform?”  According to the OED, one of the definitions of “reform” is to “convert into another and better form; make a change for the bettering, improve, remove faults or errors in, amend.”  Based on that definition, you would think that “tort reform” is always a good thing, an objective improvement of the tort system.

The tort system, like any other collection of laws, however, represents a delicate balance of everyone’s rights and liabilities.  Sometimes I think that “tort reform” fiddles too much with one side of the balance.  “Tort reform” undoubtedly often results in changes for the better, but sometimes the better description would be “tort deform.” 

On a related subject, I take issue with the Pacific Research Institute’s statement in its press release that the “Deep South and parts of the Southeast also ranked poorly.”  I don’t know how you define the Deep South, but I want to point out that Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, George, Tennessee and North Carolina were all in the top half of the study’s results.