The Fake Crisis over Lawsuits

[Fencesitter]

The Fake Crisis over Lawsuits:
Who's Paying to Keep the Myths Alive?
Stephanie Mencimer

Over the past two years, the average media consumer would be under the impression that the nation is awash with lawsuits, greedy trial lawyers and out of control juries eager to punish corporate America with million-dollar verdicts. The airwaves and newspapers have been flooded with hundreds of stories on the legal system, with common references to the justice system as a lottery for the undeserving and most lawsuits as "frivolous." And many of the stories carry glaring factual errors. A few examples:

more here

Academic researchers have done a tremendous amount of empirical study that contradicts many of the claims of a "lawsuit crisis," but none of it made it into the stories cited above. For instance, despite the alarmist headlines, tort lawsuit filings nationally actually have decreased 9 percent since 1992, according to the National Center for State Courts. The numbers are even more pronounced when stacked up against population growth. In Texas, where the population jumped 23 percent between 1990 and 2000, the rate of tort filings fell from 233 to 164 per 100,000 residents, a 30 percent decline. In California, the rate of filings plummeted 45 percent. As for the "legal lottery" described in Newsweek, a Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that in 1996, the "jackpot" really isn't very large. The median punitive damage award was only $27,000.

Based on this article, many of the claims that the US is more litigious than before are unwarranted.

Fence

[JoeP]

A decrease of 9% since 1992 makes no dent at all on my prejudice, which is that America has been significantly more litigous that Britain, and Europe in general, for decades - all my life.

I wasn't aware of any panic of "lawsuit crisis" in the US, but if there is such a media phenomenon, couldn't it just be due to increasing global comparisons and global reporting?

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by JoeP

A decrease of 9% since 1992 makes no dent at all on my prejudice, which is that America has been significantly more litigous that Britain, and Europe in general, for decades - all my life.

I wasn't aware of any panic of "lawsuit crisis" in the US, but if there is such a media phenomenon, couldn't it just be due to increasing global comparisons and global reporting?

Hmm, possible.

Do you have any statistics for comparison about how different the rates are in Britain and Europe? I guess I'll have to claim some ethnocentricity here. I wasn't aware of the great disparity that you claim. Since this article gives rates per 100,000 people for certain years, is it possible to compare these rates to the areas that you mention?

Fence

[JoeP]

I clearly said prejudice! I don't have no stats. ... Nor can I find anything concrete on a quick search.

[alphamale]

I read somewhere that the amount of civil litigation in this country is more than the rest of the world combined.

[Sock Puppet]

There is a pervasive "kill the lawyers" mentality here in the US that is rooted more in a need for scapegoats than actual fact. A sure-fire propaganda strategy is to paint the opposition as being in cahoots with the trial lawyers (as if trial lawyers were a monolithic entity that always works toward the same Evil Ends).

A handful of areas here are notorious for so-called runaway juries, most notably (IIRC) Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. I suspect that if those areas were eliminated, the average jury award would be even less significant than the numbers cited in the OP.

[alphamale]

Trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to the democrat party - and they want something for their money. I heard that specialist physicians have been practically driven out of west virginia because they can't afford the liability insurance - practicing there means working for nothing - off course this goes back to the tort lawyers.

[alphamale]

One thing I wonder about lawyers - do any of you ever wonder what it would be like to have a real job?

[livius drusus]

Interesting article, Fence. I'm not surprised to see that some of the cause celebre judgements are entirely fabricated. Even the ones which aren't fictional are frequently presented in such a reductionist, caricatured manner that they might as well be fairy tales.

The case of the woman who sued McDonald's over coffee burns leaps to mind. I don't know how many times I saw that story turned into some smartass quip about stupid people needing warnings to realize coffee is hot. The reality of that case was entirely different: see this excellent article for an overview of the much-neglected facts.

[alphamale]

Heres one for you - now the buzzards are going after casinos!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54083,00.html

What happened to the lawyer leeches going after McDonald's etc, because fat people who went in and ate their stuff got fat?

An example of the lawyer frenzy wrecking our country is that hairdryers have tags that say "don't use while taking a bath". There's lots of such labels. I wonder what foreigners who see them think? Everyone here is stupid? But that's the presumption of lawyers - if anyone can possibly harm themselves using a product, whether with a hairdryer in a bath tub, tobacco which was suspected as long ago as the era of King James as causing disease, it's the fault of the guy with the deep pockets. They closed recreational areas in california because some cities can't afford to be bankrupted when someone gets hurt doing something stupid - like the guy who dove off the pier in Huntington Beach, broke his back and sued for $6 million.

Know why their aren't more vaccines for diseases? Because the companies are afraid of lawyers. In an era of globalization, and increased competition, tort lawyers discourage innovation. Lawyers are one of the things that are slowly destroying this country.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Know why their aren't more vaccines for diseases?

Because they're hard to discover?

Because drug companies would rather research chronic care medications for long-term illnesses that will sell in enormous volume than vaccines having only one-time applications?

Because diseases mutate constantly, meaning that one will always be behind the curve in responding to whatever infectious agent is problematic at a given time?

Because the companies are afraid of lawyers.

Oh. Sorry, I thought you wanted actual answers.

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I clearly said prejudice! I don't have no stats. ... Nor can I find anything concrete on a quick search.

Ah, well, that must have been my prejudice then. I thought you were an atheist and that atheists don't believe things without evidence.

Fence

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Interesting article, Fence. I'm not surprised to see that some of the cause celebre judgements are entirely fabricated. Even the ones which aren't fictional are frequently presented in such a reductionist, caricatured manner that they might as well be fairy tales.

The case of the woman who sued McDonald's over coffee burns leaps to mind. I don't know how many times I saw that story turned into some smartass quip about stupid people needing warnings to realize coffee is hot. The reality of that case was entirely different: see this excellent article for an overview of the much-neglected facts.

Thanks, livius.

And yes, I remember whole threads on IIDB about the McDonald's case as well as some of the other widely heard judgments.

It's interesting that besides your reply and the quote in the OP, most of the responses here contain a lot of generalizations. I suspect that's how the McDonald's story came to be so disconnected from the actual facts of the case.

Fence

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

One thing I wonder about lawyers - do any of you ever wonder what it would be like to have a real job?

Nah.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Heres one for you - now the buzzards are going after casinos!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54083,00.html

What happened to the lawyer leeches going after McDonald's etc, because fat people who went in and ate their stuff got fat?

Ummm . . . .

Their cases were dismissed and they ate the costs?

[alphamale]

Government: If it exists, tax it.

Lawyers: If it has money, sue it.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by alphamale

What happened to the lawyer leeches going after McDonald's etc, because fat people who went in and ate their stuff got fat?

I dunno, Bub. I keep asking people citing this whole Fat Lawsuit Crisis, and nobody will answer me.

So answer. What happened to the "lawyer leeches going after McDonald's etc."?

Oh, wait. There was only the ONE lawyer leech, who basically floated two cases, one of which was thrown out of court because it didn't show clear negligence, and the other of which I don't think was even filed?

Dur. All those damned one lawyer leech[es] and his two unsuccessful fat lawsuits. I remember that. Society as we know it almost crumbled.

Have you looked any of this stuff up at all? Are you aware that the tobacco cases were slightly more complicated than you portray them as? Do you actually have evidence that dumb warning labels have anything at all to do with actual litigation or threat of litigation, or is it just that marketing people are usually about as stupid as other people, and as such, tend to have some generalized, unfounded idea that they'll get sued for dumbassed shit like that?

And don't cite that Weekly World News' "contraceptive jelly" case, either.

[Sock Puppet]

I find it interesting that "lawyers" are demonized in general, even though all of the actual complaints are directed at tort lawyers who represent plaintiffs. But wouldn't that mean that defense lawyers are Good Guys? What about lawyers who work primarily on transactional matters, in administrative proceedings, or wills/trusts?

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Ah, well, that must have been my prejudice then. I thought you were an atheist and that atheists don't believe things without evidence.

Fence

Wow. Where the hell did that come from?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I wasn't aware of any panic of "lawsuit crisis" in the US, but if there is such a media phenomenon, couldn't it just be due to increasing global comparisons and global reporting?

Nah. This horseshit "lawsuit crisis" story repeats itself at fairly regular intervals here in the U.S. Private insurance companies make money by investing the policy premium payments they collect. When investments are good, insurers cut premiums to attract more customers and thereby bring in more investment capital. The higher investment income goes, the more reckless the insurers' premium cutting and underwriting practices get. Eventually, the whole mess comes crashing down. Investment income does a full gainer into the toilet and insurers, thanks to their dubious pricing and underwriting practices, are left to operate on a very thin margin.

At that point, the insurance industry and its ever-obedient lap dogs -- chambers of commerce, Republican legislators and the insurer-funded American Tort Reform Association -- start screaming about a "litigation crisis" that's causing an "insurance crisis" and threatening the very fabric of American life. The solution, so these professional liars tell us, is a singularly odious form of corporate welfare known as tort reform. Arbitrarily cap recoveries,* eliminate joint and several liability, etc. and everything will be fine.

We've heard a lot of this nonsense with regard to medical negligence cases in recent years. When the last investment income crash occurred, insurers started losing money hand over fist. Doctors got fucked in a big way when insurers imposed astronomical increases in malpractice insurance premiums to cover their own losses. Desperate for relief (and often constitutionally incapable of admitting fallibility), many a physician jumped on the tort reform bandwagon.

Trouble is, thirty years of tort reform history prove rather conclusively that tort reform legislation never translates into lower premiums. Indeed, the statistics show that premiums rise faster and farther in tort reform states than in non-reform states. Tort reform helps insurers by lowering payouts on injury claims, but those savings don't get passed on to consumers. Heaven forbid that State Farm's CEO be forced to skinny by on $3 million a year instead of his customary $10 million.

So, then, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "lawsuit crises" are directly related to the insurance industry's business cycle. There have been three major tort reform waves, all of which coincided perfectly with dramatic downturns in investment income. That's no coincidence. And as Fencesitter's article shows, the data on which such wailing is based are utterly bogus.

*Tort reformers call these caps on damages, which is a rather egregious misnomer. The amount of damages a person can suffer on account of a tortfeasor's negligence is limitless. Thus, you can only cap recoveries, not damages.

Originally Posted by alphamale

One thing I wonder about lawyers - do any of you ever wonder what it would be like to have a real job?

Hell no, man. People with "real jobs" work 40-60 hour weeks. That's like a perpetual vacation. What a bunch of pussies! Gimme the 70-90 hours per week I worked back when I was still practicing law!

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hell no, man. People with "real jobs" work 40-60 hour weeks. That's like a perpetual vacation. What a bunch of pussies! Gimme the 70-90 hours per week I worked back when I was still practicing law!

Don't forget getting sued personally by defense counsel. Hilarious hijinx ensue!

Or should I say it gives rise to a theory of hilarious hijinx?

[alphamale]

Gimme the 70-90 hours per week I worked back when I was still practicing law!

Yah, but you weren't DOING anything productive with your 70-90 hours. You weren't growing an ear of corn. You weren't writing a book or a computer program. You weren't driving a cab, or building cars. You weren't painting a house or a portrait. All you were do was making a lot of money leeching off society, and when the leeching is good, lawyers will do it for 90 hours.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Yah, but you weren't DOING anything productive with your 70-90 hours.

Do you know him, or what sort of law he practiced?

[livius drusus]

He'll know when you and Maturin declare yourself a class and give alphamale a whole new understanding of tort.

[Ensign Steve]

This just in:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI" ~1592