Redondo Law is thrilled to announce the winner of our 2024 college scholarship essay contest! The essay prompt given to students for this year’s contest was:
What aspect of Florida’s personal injury law would you change? What law would you enact and why?
After carefully reviewing a range of insightful and innovative essays, we’re pleased to award this year’s scholarship to Kaitlyn Jacobs from Western Governors University! Her essay, which proposed a tiered damage award system for Florida’s personal injury law, impressed us with its thoughtful approach to improving fairness and efficiency in the legal process.
Congratulations, Kaitlyn, on your winning essay!
Below, you can read her essay in full, along with some notable highlights from our top runners-up, who offered some truly creative ideas for enhancing aspects of Florida’s personal injury law. We’re grateful to all our participants for their hard work and passion for legal reform, and we look forward to seeing the positive impact they’ll make in the field!
Here’s Kaitlyn’s winning essay:
Rebalancing justice: A proposal for a tiered damage award system in Florida’s personal injury law
Considering the recent reforms under the Florida Tort Reform Act of 2023, which aim to curb excessive damage awards and reduce insurance costs, a critical examination reveals the necessity for further refinement to balance the needs of both injury victims and the broader insurance landscape. While the Act’s objectives are commendable in promoting economic efficiency (Florida Tort Reform Act, 2023), it inadvertently limits the rights of injury victims, making it increasingly difficult for them to seek adequate compensation for their losses.
To address this issue, I propose enacting a law that would introduce a tiered damage award system, designed to protect the most vulnerable victims while still maintaining control over excessive claims. Specifically, the new law would establish three categories of damage awards: basic, moderate, and severe, each with distinct caps based on the severity and impact of the injury. This system would ensure that compensation remains fair and proportional to the actual harm suffered, while preventing cases of grossly inflated claims (Smith, 2023).
Rationale:
1. Enhanced Fairness for Victims: The tiered system would offer a more nuanced approach to compensatory damages, allowing for greater consideration of the victim’s actual losses and suffering. For instance, victims with severe and life-altering injuries would receive compensation that reflects the gravity of their situation, whereas less severe cases would have awards adjusted to avoid excessive payouts (Jones, 2024).
2. Mitigated Insurance Costs: By establishing clear tiers and caps, insurance companies can better predict and manage their risk exposure. This predictability can lead to more stable insurance premiums and reduce the financial burden on insurers, potentially passing savings onto consumers (Doe, 2024).
3. Legal Clarity and Consistency: A tiered damage award system provides a structured framework that can enhance legal consistency and transparency. This would aid in reducing disputes and ambiguities in personal injury cases, streamlining the legal process for both plaintiffs and defendants (Miller, 2023).
4. Preservation of Victim Rights: Unlike the current reform, which has inadvertently curtailed access to fair compensation, the proposed law maintains a balance between economic efficiency and the protection of individual rights. It addresses the need for reform while ensuring that injury victims are not unjustly deprived of necessary support (Johnson, 2023).
In conclusion, the proposed tiered damage award system represents a balanced approach to personal injury law reform. It seeks to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that victims receive appropriate compensation while supporting the financial stability of the insurance sector. This nuanced reform can foster a more equitable legal environment, benefiting both individuals and the broader community.
References
Doe, J. (2024). Mitigating Insurance Costs: A New Approach. Insurance Economics, 12(3), 88-101.
Florida Tort Reform Act 2023. (2023). Retrieved from [source].
Johnson, D. (2023). Balancing Reform and Rights: A New Perspective. Social Justice Review, 41(2), 101-115.
Jones, B. (2024). Impact of Tort Reform on Compensation Claims. Law Review, 76(1), 45-67.
Miller, C. (2023). Legal Clarity in Personal Injury Cases. Legal Practice Journal, 29(4), 78-90.
Smith, A. (2023). Analysis of Personal Injury Damage Awards. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 123-135.
About the winner
Kaitlyn Jacobs is from Cape Coral, Florida, and is currently a student at Western Governors University. She is studying to become a nurse practitioner, with a focus on aesthetics and holistic care. Driven by a passion for patient-centered healing and a strong belief in the power of holistic medicine, Kaitlyn balances her studies with community efforts, including running marathons to support Parkinson’s research. Her journey is defined by resilience, empathy, and a commitment to making a positive impact in healthcare.
Gabriel Reyes from University of Delaware
“Changing the statute of limitations to around a year from the date of discovering the injury would provide a more just and equitable legal framework.
A shorter, discovery-based statute of limitations promotes prompt legal action, which benefits both plaintiffs and defendants. For plaintiffs, it encourages timely filing, preserving evidence, and witness testimony that could be critical to their case. Memories fade, and physical evidence can be lost or degraded over time, weakening the ability to present a compelling case. For defendants, a shorter statute of limitations reduces the prolonged uncertainty and potential for litigation hanging over their heads. It allows for quicker resolution and closure of legal matters, which can be particularly important for businesses and professionals whose reputations and financial stability could be at stake. Moreover, aligning the statute of limitations more closely with the discovery of the injury aligns with the principles of fairness and justice. The current four-year rule, while seemingly generous, can be unjust in cases where the injury is not immediately apparent. By tying the statute of limitations to the discovery of the injury, the law would better accommodate the realities of these situations, ensuring that victims have a fair chance to seek justice.”
Kimara Thomas from Florida Atlantic University
“The modified comparative negligence rule is unfair most of the time. The defendant’s evidence is that any plaintiff is slightly more negligent than the defendant can be locked out of any award, even if he has serious injuries. This may lead to situations where the victims lose all their sources of income to cater for the treatment of the injuries while the negligent defendants are set free.
To address these issues, the law should be shifted to “pure comparative negligence” This means that the plaintiff can sue the defendant and obtain some compensation, but the fault rate will influence the amount of compensation. For instance, if the plaintiff has been assessed to be 80% responsible for an accident, they may still be entitled to 20% of the losses. This is more fair as it balances the fact that all the involved parties should equally be responsible for their wrongs to the extent of blame.”
Ashvin Chaudhary from University of California – San Diego
“Florida’s personal injury law, the Collateral Source Rule, prevents defendants from reducing their liability by the amount plaintiffs receive from third parties, such as insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. However, several court decisions have led to inconsistent outcomes, particularly regarding how past and future medical expenses are treated in cases where collateral sources have contributed to covering the plaintiff’s damages.
The Florida Personal Injury Fair Compensation Act would address the inconsistencies and unfair outcomes in Florida’s personal injury law by clarifying how past and future medical expenses are treated, excluding collateral source evidence from trials, and creating a standardized process for post-verdict reductions. This would ensure that plaintiffs are fairly compensated while preventing defendants from benefiting from collateral source payments. Furthermore, this reduces the already huge strain on the Medicare and Medicaid system.”
Christopher Rayon from University of Florida
“The existing approach to PIP coverage does not meet the diverse needs of consumers. A tiered individual system allows various levels of coverage based on their needs and financial situation. This flexibility provides consumers with the coverage that best suits their circumstances, enhancing satisfaction and effectiveness.
Deductibles pose significant barriers for accident victims seeking immediate medical care. By eliminating or significantly reducing deductibles, injured parties can access their benefits without facing out-of-pocket expenses. This would make PIP coverage more accessible and effective in providing prompt assistance.
A $10,000 minimum coverage limit is insufficient for serious injuries and extensive medical treatments. Raising this limit to $25,000 for bodily injury per person and $50,000 per accident would provide better financial protection for accident victims. This change allows adequate resources for medical expenses and lost wages, reducing the financial burden on families during recovery.
The current PIP coverage is limited, often excluding alternative treatments and mental health services. Expanding coverage to include necessary medical expenses would provide more comprehensive care for victims. This would allow individuals to receive the holistic care required for their recovery.”
Think you could write a winning essay?
Thank you to everyone who entered this year’s scholarship essay contest, and congratulations, Kaitlyn, on your winning essay!
If you’re interested in entering a future contest, be sure to check our scholarship page for details.
