In the 1940's when more than one party was judged to be responsible for damages, a judge or jury assigned percentage of blame. Examples: A drunk driver in a company car causes an accident. A jury could assess 95% (or less) of the blame to the driver & the company would be responsible for the remainder of the costs. Cica 5-10 years ago, a women spilled coffee from a McDonalds drive-in on her lap & was badly burned. McDonalds was sued for a huge sum, much of which was for pain & suffering (The medical costs were minimal). The lawsuit was based on a claim that the coffee was excessively hot. Gee Whiz!! Should McDonalds sell luke warm coffee? Under the old laws, most of the blame & costs would probably be assigned to the woman for being a careless Klutz. The new laws favor lawyers, who typically get at least one third of the money won in lawsuits. Note that many members of congress/senate are lawyers & the change in blame assesement laws favors lawyers, who typically get at least one third of the money awarded. BTW: Until recently insider trading laws did not apply to congressmen/senators. I am not sure if they applied to members of state & local legislators. These laws should have applied to legislators from day 1 of our constitution. It seems outrageous that a congressman/senator used to be allowed to buy/sell stocks, knowing that legislation about to be proposed & passed would have an effect of the price of certain stocks (or all stocks if it related to the taxing of dividends or capital gains).