Sandra Adinolfi lost her husband George to cancer caused from exposure to asbestos. When he died, Sandra and her six children were not only left emotionally devastated, but with no source of income.

If she had not had the option to sue, asked Sandra, "What would I have done?"

Adinolfi, and other advocates rallied by the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), gathered at the Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola last Thursday to demonstrate against proposed tort reform.

"It shields or immunizes wrongdoers," said NYPIRG Legislative Counsel Russ Haven alluding to the "Wrongdoers Escape Act" moniker NYPIRG has hung on the proposed bill.

"I have spent a number of years in Albany," said Haven, "this is by far the most cruel and cynical piece of legislation I have ever seen."

The move for tort reform came to light when seemingly frivolous lawsuits resulted in millions of dollars for plaintiffs, according to co-sponsor of the bill, State Senator Carl Marcellino.

Many of these claims were eventually reduced significantly or thrown out completely, said the senator. In any case the effect of the suits was felt by the consumer, as insurance claims went up so did the price of products to offset the cost the lawsuits presented to the manufacturer.

"There has to be something in the process to hold down some of the claims," argued Marcellino.

The goal of the bill is to unclog the courts, speed up the legal process, take care of people in real need and reasonably reimburse those who deserve reward according to the senator.

NYPIRG objects to several provisions within the bill which they feel "gut state laws that allow injured New Yorkers to hold corporations accountable."

Joint and several liability provides an injured person the opportunity to sue all parties involved in their injury. The bill calls for the elimination of this doctrine.

Joint and several liability is critical, according to NYPIRG, in situations when one party is destitute. For instance if a person is assaulted in their home by a criminal who is broke, the victim is free to seek compensation from a negligent landlord.

However, supporters of the bill see the elimination of joint and several liability as lessening "deep pocket" litigation and protecting those who have a limited amount of culpability.

The bill also proposes establishing a statute of repose of 10 years for defective products freeing manufacturers and sellers from suits for injuries caused by a product 10 years after it goes to market. This immunity would apply to engineers, architects or construction contractors for buildings and structures over 10 years of age.

NYPIRG argues that products such as home furnaces, heart valves, buildings, bridges and elevators are expected to have a life span longer than 10 years. Injured consumers would be unable to obtain compensation no matter how reckless the acts of the manufacturer or builder if they were to be injured after the 10 year span.

By placing a $250,000 cap for non-economic damages, defined as intangibles like pain and suffering, bill supporters believe that general liability and malpractice insurance rates would be reduced.

According to Sandra Adinolfi, $250,000 would not have even covered her husband's medical expenses.

George Adinolfi served as a Transit Officer in the NYPD well aware of the risks that came with the job. Said Sandra, "But when he became a sheet metal worker no one ever informed him of the risks of asbestos."

George spent seven years in construction before entering the police department. After 19 years in the NYPD, during which he was decorated, he retired with the maximum pension, never thinking that his health was in jeopardy.

The Adinolfi family had just moved into a home in Nesconset, Long Island with their six children, when George was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Though he endured for almost a year George eventually succumbed in 1992, a few days shy of Christmas. "He died a very painful death," recalled his wife.

When he died the pension stopped, and Sandra, who had no formal education and never worked outside of the home, was forced to fend for herself and her family.

She had no source of income and no medical coverage. To make ends meet she cleaned houses and worked at a local Dunkin Donuts. To do this she had to first learn to drive a car.

"Sandra go after them," George had told his wife in his last days and she did. It took until 1995, but Sandra successfully sued the companies responsible for providing the asbestos that caused her husband's cancer.

With the money from the lawsuit, she was able to keep her home, pay her bills and acquire the proper medical care for her family. Sandra now attends Suffolk Community College.

Joyce Gorycki of Mineola lost her husband James in the Long Island Rail Road massacre when he was killed by a gun fired by Colin Ferguson. She and other victims unsuccessfully sued the gun manufacturer for the hardships they endured.

Though unsuccessful in her own suit, Gorycki, now the co-chairwoman of the Long Island Chapter of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, appeared at the demonstration to express her strong opinions on victims' rights.

"Let's not let this new bill pass," said Gorycki, "We must have the right to sue these manufacturers and let them be responsible for the products they sell which kill innocent people."

Marcelino said he understands that there is opposition to the bill, but while no one wants to encourage unsafe workplaces, many people want a change. The goal of that change according to the senator is to make the process fair to everybody.

"I think the public wants the court system to be reformed. Whether this is the bill is another story," said Marcellino, "I am sure this bill will be amended a number of times before it hits the floor, if it does."

During her trial against the asbestos companies, Sandra Adinolfi was speaking to a supporter who mused that if Picasso had painted a picture of her husband George, that picture would be worth more than any settlement she would receive from her lawsuit.

In consideration of her situation Sandra asked then as she does now, "What price do you put on a human life?"