6 State Constitutions and American Tort Law-Witt adopted no fewer than 146 constitutions. Some note that as compared to the veritable orgy of constitutional drafting and redrafting in the nineteenth century, state constitution-making has slowed in the twentieth century (e.g Henretta 1991). And yet even in the twentieth century alone, eighteen states ratified entirely new constitutions. Ten states did so after 1960(Tarr 1991; Grad 1968). Taking just the seven years from 1986 to 1993, there were no fewer than fifty-two amendments to state declarations of rights alone(Tarr 1998, 13) Given the length and detail of the american state constitutions, it should hardly be surprising that they have come to have significant bearing on modern debates over tort reform. Beginning in the mid-1970s, liability insurers, product manufacturers, and other repeat-play tort defendants began a concerted effort to enact laws that would limit tort liability that they contended had run amok. Typical tort reform legislation included statutory limitations on punitive damages awards(25 states)and statutory caps on damages for pain and suffering(23 states). Other reforms included limitations on plaintiffs' attorneys' fees; statutes of repose that protect products manufacturers and other potential defendants from suits for injuries caused by older products; and limitations on the common law joint- and-several liability rule, which often allowed a plaintiff to recover the full extent of her damages from any one defendant. In all, some 48 state legislatures enacted tort reform legislation of one sort or another(franklin & Rabin2001,788) Even as state tort reform efforts picked up, however, a parallel development got underway in state constitutional law. Plaintiffs responded to state tort reform by contending(among other things) that statutes that capped punitive damages, limited pain and suffering damages, and imposed new limitations periods on tort suits, violated provisions in state constitutions. As a result. for almost two decades now state courts have been asked to decide whether certain reforms in the law of torts are within the power of the state legislature of their state. The results of such constitutional challenges to tort reform statutes have been mixed. Courts have upheld challenges to tort reform legislation in at least 139 cases decided since the beginning of 1983 Tort Reform Laws Upheld 2001 And yet during the same time period, courts have struck do statutes as violations of state constitutions in at least eighthy-three cases6 State Constitutions and American Tort Law – Witt adopted no fewer than 146 constitutions. Some note that as compared to the veritable orgy of constitutional drafting and redrafting in the nineteenth century, state constitution-making has slowed in the twentieth century (e.g., Henretta 1991). And yet even in the twentieth century alone, eighteen states ratified entirely new constitutions. Ten states did so after 1960 (Tarr 1991; Grad 1968). Taking just the seven years from 1986 to 1993, there were no fewer than fifty-two amendments to state declarations of rights alone (Tarr 1998, 13). Given the length and detail of the American state constitutions, it should hardly be surprising that they have come to have significant bearing on modern debates over tort reform. Beginning in the mid-1970s, liability insurers, product manufacturers, and other repeat-play tort defendants began a concerted effort to enact laws that would limit tort liability that they contended had run amok. Typical tort reform legislation included statutory limitations on punitive damages awards (25 states) and statutory caps on damages for pain and suffering (23 states). Other reforms included limitations on plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees; statutes of repose that protect products manufacturers and other potential defendants from suits for injuries caused by older products; and limitations on the common law joint￾and-several liability rule, which often allowed a plaintiff to recover the full extent of her damages from any one defendant. In all, some 48 state legislatures enacted tort reform legislation of one sort or another (Franklin & Rabin 2001, 788). Even as state tort reform efforts picked up, however, a parallel development got underway in state constitutional law. Plaintiffs responded to state tort reform by contending (among other things) that statutes that capped punitive damages, limited pain and suffering damages, and imposed new limitations periods on tort suits, violated provisions in state constitutions. As a result, for almost two decades now state courts have been asked to decide whether certain reforms in the law of torts are within the power of the state legislature of their state. The results of such constitutional challenges to tort reform statutes have been mixed. Courts have upheld challenges to tort reform legislation in at least 139 cases decided since the beginning of 1983 (Tort Reform Laws Upheld 2001). And yet during the same time period, courts have struck down tort reform statutes as violations of state constitutions in at least eighthy-three cases