You know, World Eater, that frivolous lawsuits are thrown out all the time? Since this wasn’t thrown out as frivolous I have to assume it has more meat to it than you think.
You’re right.
Hey, I know - let’s just get rid of 'em all!
No, my experience and observation has been that a decent set of rules generally restrains people from acting quite as badly as they would without the rules. Stare decisis has given us a much more consistent legal system than free judicial exercise of ‘common sense’ would have.
It’s pie in the sky of course, but I’d prefer a system that didn’t have to toss out these stupid lawsuits in the first place. Some form of societal change is needed to ween people off this culture of entitlement we’re evolving into. A father of a friend of mine was recently sued because someone slipped on some ice located on the sidewalk in front of his house. The lawsuit was thrown out because the father had been out of the country for 3 weeks before it had snowed, however he still had to eat $3,000 in lawyer fees, because he had no choice but to defend himself.
I’ll agree with you here.
Are other countries experiencing these sort of litigation run amok issues?
That’s a good question - in what way (if any) is the culture of entitlement lawsuits here an American phenomenon? To me, at times, it feels like an “enough’s enough” response from the economically disenfranchised. And while I won’t defend their greed, if it’s a response to Corporate greed and dishonesty, then it’s understandable.
And yes, if they were upfront about it, McD’s et al would feature fat actors & actresses. Isn’t Kirstie Alley looking for work?
In Britain, definitely. Since no-win, no-fee laws were introduced. Ads for those damn companies run all the bloody time. Must be a huge industry. It’s more the “I slipped over a loose paving stone” lawsuits than your barmy mega-bucks payouts which keeps everyone else amused. Luckily, here we award only cash for losses rather than that punitive madness.
Before trying to analyze the “culture of entitlement” (which I believe exists to a certain extent - I just don’t think this is a manifestation of it) it’s necessary to prove the things that people here are treating as axiomatic. Are frivolous lawsuits destroying the country? Have people become more litigious? How much of the litigation in question is really frivolous - and how do you intend to prove it? Unfortunately, what we get in the media is a heavily biased look at the particulars of each case - and folks like World Eater here (who normally seems reasonable - I suppose he’s just temporarily taken leave of his senses) feel that they can judge the legal issues in question without knowing them.
What I lament is the lack of critical thinking skills manifested in this debate. People don’t seem to recognize the enormous propaganda campaign at work here - lobbyists are being paid millions of dollars to persuade the public to join them in condemnations of “frivolous lawsuits”. Folks like World Eater here unfortunately jump on the bandwagon without looking at exactly the message they’re endorsing and who it benefits.
I’m a liberal, but I’m not in that (rightfully hated) crowd that hates all business whatsoever. But I still think it’s important to figure out where this notion (or meme, to use the overhyped concept du jour) came from, and to do that you have to figure out who it benefits. It’s not hard to figure that one out, really. It’s pretty remarkable, in fact, that the public is so up-in-arms about “frivolous lawsuits” - because the people who stand to benefit are large corporations.
For instance, the original award in the much-discussed McDonald’s Coffee lawsuit was in the seven figures, and it equaled two days worth of coffee sales for the corporation. It was later reduced. The companies that are being “victimized” here are barely being hurt - there’s just no rational justification for the notion that large businesses are being driven into the ground by baseless litigation. So instead people couch their arguments in moralistic, self-righteous claims that what’s going on today is just wrong. Man, I wish folks would wake up and figure out where the slogans they’re chanting are coming from.
OK, Excaliber, I’ll make it simple for you. You cannot go into any kind of business today, without having insurance. Your insurance rates are a function of the tens of thousands of lawyers who are CONSTANTLY looking for ways in which to extort money from you. So you have an added cost of business right there.
Second, should you be the target of a lawsuit, you will have to defend yourself. This involves hiring a lawyer, and is not cheap.
Third, there is the societal cost of running courhouses, paying judges salaries, court stenographers, etc.
Now, we have close to 1 millionlawyers in the USA. Their activties cost us money…money that couldbe spent on more productive purposes. And lawyers activities do not result in job creation…frequently, their ffects are job destruction. I can think of many industries that no longer exist, becaus the threat of litigation has driven them away.
What we (as a society) have to address: does our tort system result in:
-righting wrongs
-safer products
-economic efficiency
I would say no…we have a system that costs a huge amount of money and time, and results in bizarre outcomes. In my area, we are bombarded by TV ads from lawyers…offering to extort money on our behalf (“I’ll get you what’s rightfully yours”)…society pays, and pays in ways that will astound you.
In the case of fast food, we have a product that is known to be unhealthy (if consumed in large amounts). We alsoknow that exercise and physical actvity are ncessary to avoid obesity (if one consumes a high caloric diet). Should people be rewarded for acting recklessly? It app[ears to me that they should not.
As I say, the diversion of resources to the legal industry is a bad thing for our society…it mkes our industries less competitive, and lowers our standard of living.
And yes, I’ll be the first to admit that there should be some means of recovery (for damages suffered due to dfective products). But a Big Mac is NOT a defective product…it is no more defectve that a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey, or a Ford Mustang, or a glass of beer.
I respectfully submit that the insurance industry is playing both sides. Of course they want a cap on damage awards, because they are really the ones whose coffers have to pay out when all is said and done. At the same time, they are raising rates for small business owners like myself, and excluding more and more things on an annual basis, even though I’ve never had a claim. A slip-and-fall claim against Mall-Wart is pocket change. If someone slips and falls on a deck that I’ve built, I’ll get sued because I was involved, and the cost of defense in time alone can be devastating to a small business. So, while the big corporate suits make the news, supporting tort reform has a beneficial trickle-down effect to those of us who are bottom-feeders.
See, I told you my opinion would be unpopular – but at least understand it before you object so strongly. You make it look like the potential for good is in some way linked to the suit being unjustified. That’s just silly. What I’m saying is that the benefits are independent to the legality of the suit.
Again, you don’t understand. I don’t care if the self indulgent plaintiff falls into a geothermal vent and cooks like KFC fried chicken once he has served his purpose. That purpose being trimming the kitschy marketing machine that is McD’s from the remainder of US culture like a piece of fat.
People are required to purchase insurance (and it’s not cheap for me, even with an unblemished driving record, since I’m young) at exhorbitant prices just to be allowed to drive a car. People spend thousands upon thousands on health insurance just to be able to obtain basic medical treatment. Insurance is a fact of life for everyone, not just business owners. I don’t see why I should care about this.
Most cases never make it to trial. The great majority of the court system (80% is the figure I can remember, but I’ll check the text I got it from when I get a chance) is devoted strictly to corporate law. Tort cases are a relatively tiny fraction of court costs, and the court system is necessary to the functioning of the free state - so we’re not getting rid of it no matter what! Besides, these costs are miniscule in comparison to other government costs.
You believe that the entire tort system creates no benefit to society? Do you even recognize how extraordinary a claim that is? What happens in cases in which a corporation is genuinely neglectful or reckless - should their victims have no recompense at all? Because it’s not as though we can subject an entire corporation to a criminal trial (and what? Stick every employee in the pen?)
So, in sum, you believe that the tort system - the only mechanism the public has to ensure corporate responsibility - ought to be disbanded (since it doesn’t right wrongs, make safer products, or make the economy more efficient) and the public should be happy to simply allow large corporations to do entirely as they wish.
Wow.
All of which, as you know, is completely beside the point, as the suit alleges deceptive advertising. I don’t see how you can decide that such a suit is completely meritless without knowing the facts of the case.
Actually, with your claim that tort law provides no benefit to society, you’ve indirectly declared that there should be no means whatsoever to recover damages from companies who are reckless with people’s lives. Not only shouldn’t they be punished, in your ideal world free of tort law, but the folks whom they hurt shouldn’t even be allowed recompense for medical bills and lost earning capacity.
Nice.
You “tort reform” advocates are missing something huge here. The court system itself is the check on these things. That’s why there are judges, and juries (in some cases) and a complex body of law to resolve these matters - so that when a case is ridiculous, the plaintiff doesn’t benefit from it.
The thought of a court system in which judges (or some other body, since no one has directly suggested one) are empowered to throw cases out based only on their own feelings on the issue is a scary one. A government imbued with the power to deny people their basic day in court and our society’s most fundamental means for resolving disputes is Big Brotherism that couldn’t be equaled if even the worst claims about “frivolous lawsuits” were accurate. I certainly hope I never see the day when the government decides it has this right. When the judgment of a government functionary triumphs over the rule of law, democracy is dead.
The legal system is precious and the judiciary is the foundation of many of our most cherished rights. The people who think it should be more or less done away with, or reserved for those whom judges approve of, are calling for an end to many of our basic rights. I don’t see how you can believe for a minute that this power to grant or deny justice at will wouldn’t be abused - the justice system should not be held out of the reach of people’s hands in this way.
This is actually a perception thing more than a real problem - according to an Economist article from last August that I can’t link to because it’s subscription only, accident lawsuits actually fell 9.5% in the year 2003-2004. If there is a problem with the no-win, no-fee reforms, it’s that they have increased the cost of personal injury litigation a bit simply due to the increased cost of representation for the losing party. In fact, the no-win, no-fee reforms have actually increased the motivation of lawyers to find genuine cases to represent; under the former system of legal aid, a lawyer would get paid no matter what the outcome, and thus had little incentive to weed out good cases from bad.
I agree that the adverts are annoying and widespread (“Where there’s blame, there’s a claim”, blech), but it’s notable that they’re mostly found on cheap and crappy channels in the daytime, along with adverts for miraculous cleaning products. I don’t think it’s a particularly huge market, but it is competitive. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand, and it doesn’t seem to be.