A tort can be described as a civil immoral doing or an action that is not inevitably illegitimate, but one that makes another person suffer loss or mischief. In the US, any person who suffers a loss or any impairment has the right to reclaim the loss. Such a person is entitled to claim compensation for damages that he/she has incurred, usually in monetary terms. A tort claim is made against a person or people responsible for the injuries. Tort cases may comprise such topics as product liability, wrongful imprisonment, infringement of copyright, pollution of the environment, and auto accidents among many others that qualify under the definition of a tort. Categories of tort include negligence, statutory torts, nuisance, economic torts, and intentional torts. Tort reforms in the US are simply ideas that are designed to change the way the civil justice system works In her blog ‘Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense blog, Protecting America’s Access to Courts’, Justinian Lane explains tort reforms in terms of the American politics showing how the different divides between the Republicans and Democrats affect the tort reforms. She believes that tort reforms are purely an endeavor “to make it difficult for people to file injury lawsuits besides collecting reasonable amounts of money from injury suits” (Lane, 2012, Para. 1). She postulates that efforts are meant to protect the leading industries to the detriment of the public (Lane, 2012, Para. 3). Republicans, proponents of the campaign in question, judge that cases are a form of ordinances that affect the giant industries and that most industries fund the Republican Party. On the other hand, most trial lawyers are Democrats and that they fund the Democratic Party from earnings from these suits. Therefore, the support for tort reforms by republicans is simply to curtail the Democrats’ source of funds on the political arena. In the evaluation of this postulation for the purposes of if it can be used as an argument for tort reforms in the US, I find it lacking in depth in terms of the core purposes of tort reforms. This follows because all American people suffer civil suits for injury and damages regardless of their political affiliations. Therefore, the need for compensation cannot be pegged on ones political views (Lane, 2012, Para. 6). Stephen King’s views in the article ‘Does Tort Law Reform Help or Hurt Consumers?’ found in the journal The Economic Record of December 2010 “constructs a simple competitive model to analyze the effect of Tort reforms on consumers” (King, 2010, p. 563). The framework indicates that changes “to limit non-economic losses make consumers worse off ex ante” (King, 2010, p. 564). On the contrary, changes in financial losses translate to equivocal consequences. King explains that tort law reforms in the US are meant to place a ceiling to payments on non-economic losses ranging from between $250,000 in Kansas, Tennessee, and Montana to more than $1million in Nebraska, Indiana, and Virginia. He explains that tort reforms are aimed at reducing the number of claims made, as well as the size of claims with the sole aim of lowering insurance premiums to make other products that come along with it more affordable. This article by King is reliable in the s