Frivolous Lawsuits

During the fall of 2004, Disney’s Pixar released their latest smash hit, The Incredibles. The Incredibles tells the story of a super hero family in hiding. The Incredibles are not hiding out of fear for their lives, monsters, super-villains, or even their arch-nemesis, but rather an even more formidable foe—lawsuits. Once the protectors of mankind, the masses have turned on their superhero saviors by suing them for injuries suffered during their rescues. Disney has truly outdone itself in creating such a scary opponent for its heroes. What could make this animated children film’s villain so terrifying to its viewers? The fact that such lawsuits exist in real life.

While a satire of today’s legal system, Pixar’s The Incredibles is not too far off from the truth. Nowadays, one can be sued for practically anything. Lawsuits involving corporations, malpractice cases, lawsuits for discrimination—you name it, you got it. The first of such cases to gain recognition by the media occurred in 1992. While riding through a McDonald’s drive-through as a passenger in her grandson’s car, Stella Liebeck spilt a cup of coffee on her lap. Six percent of Liebeck’s body was covered with full thickness, or third degree, burns.[1] Liebeck then proceeded to sue McDonalds for the injuries suffered from the spill. Even more shocking than the act of one suing for an accident which is arguably credited to his or her own clumsiness is that Liebeck won the case against McDonald’s. Originally asking for $20,000, the court awarded Liebeck over $2.8 million in punitive and compensative damages. The court decided that McDonald's coffee was served over 15 degrees hotter than the standard fast-food coffee, which led to Liebeck's burns. This ruling raised the question of responsibility for one's actions? Many would argue that Liebeck's accident was nothing but her own fault--she clumsily spilt coffee on herself. The court, obviously, decided that McDonald's should have foreseen potential dangers by serving their coffee so hot. The McDonald’s coffee case opened the door for the thousand of frivolous lawsuits that are passing through our court today.

In today’s society, one can hear hundreds of examples of frivolous lawsuits. For example, after being struck by lightening in their parking lot, Shawn Perkins sued King’s Island Amusement Park in Mason, Ohio. Claiming that the park never warned him of the dangers of the lightening storm, Perkins wanted the park to pay him damages. Also, an Alabaman woman, Wanda Hudson, was moving her belongings from her recently foreclosed home into a storage unit. While hiding in the unit (although she claimed to have been "looking for some papers") Hudson was accidentally locked in the unit for 63 days when the manager closed the cracked door. She sued the storage company for negligence of their units and not coming to her rescue sooner. While the court found Ms. Hudson 100% responsible for being locked in the storage unit, they proceeded to award her $100,000.[2]

Even religion is not off limits to lawsuits. After a parishioner of one particular parish committed suicide, his family filed litigation against the church. They argued that the parishes' minister could not offer the proper advise to prevent the suicide. Now, more and more churches are refusing to offer counseling by their ministers, but rather are sending their parishioners to professional psychologists. Even more incredible is that 78% of teachers say that their students threaten to have their parents sue if their rights are infringed. Even the youth of America realizes the power that lawsuits have over any party that is responsible for others. Even toy sleds now have to cite such warnings as, “[b]eware: sled may develop a high speed under certain snow conditions.” [3] In their December 15, 2003 Newsweek article, Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Evan Thomas best summed up how people are abusing these lawsuits:

Americans don't just sue big corporations or bad people. They sue doctors over misfortunes that no doctor could prevent. They sue their school officials for disciplining their children for cheating. They sue their local governments when they slip and fall on the sidewalk, get hit by drunken drivers, get struck by lightning on city golf courses--and even when they get attacked by a goose in a park (that one brought the injured plaintiff $10,000). They sue their ministers for failing to prevent suicides. They sue their Little League coaches for not putting their children on the all-star team. They sue their wardens when they get hurt playing basketball in prison. They sue when their injuries are severe but self-inflicted, when their hurts are trivial and when they have not suffered at all.

Too many people are beginning to use lawsuits for the wrong reasons. Many file them to create a sense of fame--the most ridiculous lawsuits become well-known and their stories are spread all over America. Others file ridiculous lawsuits for one simple, but startling reason: They know they will win. More and more courts are hearing radical court cases and ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. By continuing to allow this type of lawsuit abuse to be used, we are defacing the principles, values, and ideals of our country. For centuries, our nation's legal system has protected the rights of its citizens. No one is safe from these litigations, and we are now in constant fear of our own liabilities.

But this creates an even greater question: "where to draw the line?" Obviously, not all lawsuits are asinine. Many people sue for legitimate reasons and are rightfully using the court to protect their rights. Legitimate examples would include malpractice suits, car accidents, and other such physical injuries. Likewise, when one's ideas are stolen, such as copyright infringement or plagiarism, they deserve a chance to defend what is rightfully theirs. While all of these are justified lawsuits, even these categories have found abuse. Later we'll examine examples of malpractice lawsuit abuse. Our nation needs to find a definition of "frivolous lawsuits" and persecute them from our courtrooms.

More than just threatening our nation out of fear of prosecution, these frivolous lawsuits are also abusing the court system. The lawsuits are making a mockery of the court system itself. It undermines the importance of the courtroom and is turning into a spotlight for some peoples’ 15 minutes of fame. The legal system was established to enforce justice in our country--not turn into the nation's best moneymaking scheme. Too many cases that are not worthy of our legal system's time are entering our courtrooms. Even worse, lawyers are taking advantage of so many opportunities to file lawsuits to actually make money off of the court system. In federal court systems Rule 11, exists to allow judges to dismiss cases they deem unworthy. In 1993, shortly after the Liebeck vs. McDonald’s case gained fame, the rule was altered to specifically target frivolous lawsuits. Currently under Rule 11, if a judge declares a case frivolous, the lawyer must withdraw the case if he or she does not have the proper justification or funds, or proper sanctions, to continue the case; however, lawyers have found a way around this rule. [4]

While Rule 11 was changed to allow frivolous lawsuits to be removed from the courtroom, it also prohibited any charges being pressed against the plaintiff. Lawyers take advantage of this clause. Many lawyers participate in an act known as forum shopping. Forum shopping is when lawyers search out particular courts that tend to rule in favor of these asinine lawsuits, thus increasing their chance to win the case. Then, the lawyers press the charges against the defendant. These cases have a certain fee to be charged by the court that is to be paid off by the side that loses the case. If the case is withdrawn, then the defendant is required to pay a very small part of this charge. In most cases, this small fee is inconsequential, because the case is over a matter of several thousands of dollars.

Let’s look at this hypothetical case to see how a lawyer might take advantage of this. Suppose that the cost for a particular trial is $1000, and the plaintiff is asking for only $150. If the defendant claims innocence, the trial would go to court. The judge could deem the trial frivolous and it would have to be withdrawn from the court, and the defendant would have to pay the small fee of about $200. In this case, the defendant would end up paying more money than had he just settled the case out of court. While this is just one small example, bigger such extortions are being taken advantage of in our court system.

Frivolous Lawsuits Frivolous Lawsuits (II) Frivolous Lawsuits (III)

All images on this website are copyrighted by their respective owners. If you have any questions please contact us at goubeauxka@xu.edu