Orrin Hatch: “this amendment basically is, in my opinion, too broad and too vague to provide guidance. It would cause more litigation…”

“this amendment basically is, in my opinion, too broad and too vague to provide guidance. It would cause more litigation, and what we are trying to do is prevent litigation that literally is unjustified. This amendment does not take into account the practical reality that the standard of care is determined as part of the case. Thus, how would a plaintiff know what the pleading requirements are under S. 96 for specificity? How would they know that? If it simply depends on the allegation of the plaintiff, then no plaintiff would fall under the requirements of this bill. This could result in tremendous abuse. Talk about loopholes, this would be the biggest loophole of all in the bill. The fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do in this bill is avoid litigation. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina talks about protecting the little guy out there, and the way that is done generally is through class actions, where the little guy gets relatively little, but those in the legal profession make a great deal. That is what we are trying to avoid, a pile of class actions that are unjustified under the circumstances where the manufacturers and all these other people go into the bunkers and get a bunker mentality rather than resolving these problems in advance. The whole purpose of this bill is to get problems resolved, to get our country through what could be one of the worst economic disasters in the country's history.”