First, the disclosure - I am a graduate of law school, but I am not a practicing attorney.
There are in fact, many people in our society that misuse the law for their own personal gain. Some of these people are lawyers. Most of them, however, are clients of lawyers who are everyday people and not lawyers themselves. Some lawyers take questionable cases. Where, as a lawyer, do you draw the line that your client does or does not have a valid case?
Say you’re an attorney and someone comes into your office with many thousands of dollars in medical expenses. This person has terminal cancer and is going to die. The cancer appeared in the right hand side of their brain and is located in the immediate region where the antenna of their cellphone lies closest to the head when in use. There is no history of brain cancer in this person’s family. The person has been a businessman in New York for 20 years and was an early adopter of cell phones.
Does this person have a case against the manufacturer of the cell phone? More importantly, does this person have the right to have the case tried in court?
If not, why not?
Now, consider this set of facts. A young man is driving his high-school graduation present. He is involved in an accident where another driver runs into the back of his car going 25 miles an hour. This is an accident that he should have been able to walk away from. Instead, his car explodes in flames and he suffers burns across 80% of his body. He is hospitalized and lingers for several months while his girlfriend and parents watch him slowly and agonizingly die. Yes, this is the Ford Pinto case.
Now, did these people have a right to sue Ford?
What I believe is the key point here is that if Ford was never sued, the Pinto defect would not have been discovered. Ford knew of the defect and decided not to do a recall because their cost/benefit analysis showed that it would be cheaper to just buy off the likely number of victims. This cost/benefit analysis would not have been discovered if the parents of the person injured had taken Ford’s settlement.
Who’s to say that the same thing isn’t happening with cell phones? Are any of you confident that Motorolla, Nokia, Samsung, etc. haven’t been quietly buying off victims for the past few years? Do you trust corporations with your health and/or life?
My biggest problem isn’t the complaints about lawyers who misuse the law. It’s the blanket statement that our society would be much better off without them.
Here are some examples where lawyers have done (arguably)great service to society with defective product lawsuits:
Agent Orange - used to be commercially available in the US.
DDT
The Pinto and Corvair
Dalkon Shield
Exploding Coke bottles (A case from 1944 where CocaCola tested brand new bottles for their ability to withstand the pressure but did not do so with recycled bottles. A bottle that had become weakened with re-use burst in a waitresses hand when she picked it up. The glass lacerated her arm, severing nerves which resulted in the loss of use of her hand.)
Non-flame retardent sleepware for children.
Lead paint.
Asbestos.
Many, many cases regarding dangerous and defective machinery.
As an aside, Firestone tires. These defects and recall wouldn’t have been without the legal history of defective product cases.
I could go on, but you get the point and I’m sure that with some thought, can come up with your own examples.
Now, one thing that very few people discuss regarding this topic is the public policy reasons behind the current state of tort law. Why does tort law exist in our society? Why has it developed to the point where we are today? Roughly (based on 6 year old 1L memory) the policy reasons are:
-
Manufacturers of products make a profit (or hope to). They stand to benefit from the sale of their products, therefore it is reasonable to make them responsible for any damage caused by their products.
-
If the manufacturer of a product is not held responsible for damage caused, then the government will have to step in and bear the cost. The cost must be borne by some party, otherwise people injured by defective products will be left to die in the streets or fend for themselves if they are disabled.
-
Knowing this, manufacturers will build in the anticipated costs of resulting damages to the price of their products. This cost will then be spread out and borne by the people who purchase the product. The assumption is that this is reasonable and fair. It also rewards careful manufacturers who test and correct defects before releasing products to market and penalizes those out to make a quick buck.
Now, I am not sure if current tort law is the best way to allocate such costs through society. There are obviously other ways to do so. For example, our public policy could be complete caveat emptor. Each individual would be responsible for obtaining insurance (or not) to provide for them and their family in the event that they are injured by a defective product. The point is, however, that such costs do exist in a modern society. How to allocate them is really the issue. I’d be interested to hear other ideas or what people think on this subject.
As for the McDonald’s case…I’m new to SDMB, and this may have been discussed before. Most people quoting the McDonald’s case do not know the actual facts of the case or why McDonald’s had to pay so much. Basically, the particular McDonalds where the woman was burned had a history of complaints from customers who were burned. This put McDonalds on notice that they had a problem. The woman’s burns were quite severe. Severe burns + prior notice = high punitive damages to punish McDonalds for not fixing the problem.
Now, my post probably sounds like I’m an apologist for the legal profession. Truth be known, I am not happy with the current state of tort law. I think that reform needs to happen. Having said that, however, I do realize the value that tort law plays in our society. I just think that it is currently a bit out of balance.
But then again, what do I know? I’m a mental patient. 
there, because I said it tongue-in-cheek.