APPEALING FOR LIBERTY & TORT REFORM

Tort reform has an undistinguished history of descent from slavery. While reading "African American Women and the Genealogy of Slavery," in APPEALING FOR LIBERTY: FREEDOM SUITS IN THE SOUTH by Loren Schweninger (2018), I read: "Slaves in Maryland continued to sue slaveowners for their freedom in subsequent years , but even as the Boston slaves' trial was drawing to a close the Maryland Assembly in 1796 passed a law altering the process of such suits . No longer, it stipulated, could such suits originate in the General Court of the Western Shore, considered by many to be 'the most prestigious judicial body in the state.' Rather such future contests would be adjudicated in the county of plaintiff's residency. In addition both plaintiffs and defendants could request a jury trial, and appeals could be made only 'as to matters of law.' Further, if a freedom suit was dismissed and brought again by the same party, the court could order a stay until the court costs of the first case had been fully paid. Lastly, free blacks could not henceforth testify against whites." P.22 Of course, the Legislature in Missouri replicated the Maryland Assembly, in tightening the terms of its own Freedom Suits, after its 1821 statehood. These fetters followed an earlier more hopeful period of victorious prospect at common law. That was when the McGirks were lawyers and judges. By 1850s such statutory strictures had produced the infamous Dred Scott decision. But. I digress . Tort reform strictures also follow venue, juries, costs, witnesses and other regulations to limit the prospect of plaintiffs ' prevailing, as was done in Maryland and Missouri with respect to slave Freedom Suits. https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=120760