COLUMN: DUI victim's father concerned about proposed lawsuit reforms

Our family’s world was shattered on New Year's Day in 2012 when my daughter Emma was killed by a drunk driver. The driver drank heavily at a local bar and was served long past the legal hours. When he got behind the wheel, his blood alcohol content was more than four times the legal limit. His decision to drive that morning stole the life of my beautiful, vibrant little girl and changed my family forever.
But it wasn’t just the driver who was responsible for Emma’s death. The bar continued to serve the driver alcohol well past closing time when he was already visibly intoxicated. Thankfully, a jury agreed, and under the current system of joint and several liability, the bar was held accountable for its role in my child’s death.
Joint and several liability ensures that when you are injured by more than one party, those who are found responsible will compensate you for your losses. This law puts the burden of allocating damages where it belongs - on the wrongdoers. Without this system, my family might have never seen justice.
Recent calls to reform joint and several liability threaten to strip victims like my family of these protections. Some argue that changing joint and several liability would benefit businesses, but those calling for reform are purposefully misleading the public.
Large insurance companies, not local businesses, are often the biggest beneficiaries of changes to joint and several liability. Reforming this system would reduce their payouts and allow them to walk away with more profits, leaving victims with far less. And if reform is passed, there is still no incentive for them to lower their insurance rates which have skyrocketed over the past few years.
Without joint and several liability, those who cause harm can escape responsibility, shifting the burden onto victims and their families. This system helps ensure that when you’re hurt, the responsible parties step up, whether it’s a negligent bar, a reckless driver or an irresponsible company.
While reformers argue that joint and several liability is unfair to businesses, it’s clear to me that the real injustice is when the victims are left without recourse. If the proposed reforms had been in place when Emma was killed, we would have never gotten the justice we deserve.
I urge lawmakers to protect victims, not corporate profits. Without joint and several liability, my family would not have received justice, and neither would countless other families. Let’s not allow big businesses to strip away the rights of those who have been hurt the most.