Advertiser Disclosure: Many of the savings offers appearing on this site are from advertisers from which this website receives compensation for being listed here. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). These offers do not represent all deposit accounts available.

Positive Comments About Living In A Litigious American Society Obsessed With Filing Lawsuits

Published 3/5/08 (Modified 3/9/11)
By MoneyBlueBook

As one who used to practice law as an attorney, I've only had a smattering of exposure to ambulance chasing - the layman's term for legal work that embodies mostly straight forward and very lucrative personal injury type cases. However based on the exposure I've had, I still retain some pretty strong opinions in counter response to persistent public calls for handicapping the wheels of litigation and placing caps on large damage awards.

Much of this anti-lawyer sentiment is based on mainstream public mistrust of trial attorneys and the work that they do. While I agree that our population has evolved into a society a bit too obsessed and even paranoid about lawyers and lawsuits, I think the passionate furor and lemming-like disdain of litigation beguiles its importance as one of the key cornerstones of what makes our country so democratic and free. Lest we forget, it is because of our pro-litigation society that our businesses and services have been able to consistently deliver such quality and corruption free excellence. Not all of society and the business world will forever remain pure and blameless, but should their actions harm or damage any person or entity, we as Americans can always rest assured that the offending parties will be held accountable. No where else in the world is there such a reliable guarantee in place.

A Pro Litigation Society Protects Quality and Advances Our Individual Rights and Freedoms

I frequently hear and read about writers and individuals who like to complain about lawsuits and denounce those who file claims for substantial amounts of money that the writer deem as frivolous. In my opinion, such genuinely frivolous causes of action would ultimately be summarily dismissed by the presiding judge of the case. But before that can happen, everybody must be able to have their entitled day in court. Thereafter, if the suit was initiated without merit or the reasonable likelihood of success, there are counter fines and sanctions available to punish the plaintiff for wasting the court's time.

Many people like to blame greedy individuals and sleazy lawyers for filing frivolous and wasteful lawsuits. I agree that there are some wrongfully filed claims out there, but the majority are legitimate and in pursuit of damages for legitimate redresses of injury. I think most people in the United States would boldly state that they are against lawsuits - that is, until it is their turn to sue somebody. If the God forbid day should ever arrive when an uninsured business van driver negligently slams into your car, permanently rendering a close family member paralyzed for life, you'll be glad we don't live in a society where they tell you to just brush it off and let it go. You'll be glad we live in a nation where you can personally seek the court's protection to compensate you and your family member for your injuries and to ensure it never happens again. It is not above revenge, but about justice and fair play.

Without the developed and reliable ability to file individual lawsuits, as citizens, we would be powerless to effect positive societal change beyond begging and lobbying our own governmental representatives to legislate the law in our favor. Living in a litigious society is actually empowering for the lowly individual. It is by this developed common law system of precedence and judicial resolution that has compelled American businesses to become the most safe and reliable in the democratic world.

In the infamous McDonald's millionaire dollar hot coffee case, a woman accidentally spilled hot coffee on her lap while waiting at a McDonald's drive-thru and badly burned herself. Although the case seemed trivial and common-sensical, the case set the precedent for more improved temperature safety warnings and control. When we buy American products and utilize the services of American doctors today, we have very high expectations of quality and competence. It's easy to blindly blame the unrepresentative pool of greedy lawyers out there, but remember, it was the successfully litigated precedents set by the product defect and physician malpractice test cases that made our system so driven towards fighting wrongdoing and rooting out faulty products. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got for our large diverse population.

Money Is How Our Civilized Society Settles Disputes

This is no longer the wild wild west. When you have a problem with someone, when your personal property is damaged, or when you are injured due to someone else's negligence, you don't attempt to duke it out through hand to hand combat or resort to one-on-one pistol duel challenges anymore. More modern and civilized methods of dispute resolution have developed and evolved - culminating into a common law adversarial legal system that centers around the recovery of monetary damages. The reason why we always hear about plaintiff individuals filing lawsuits for money is because money is the primary medium of recovery that our legal system permits. Sometimes when monetary damages is insufficient, the court will permit specific performance or injunctive action, but in the vast majority of cases, the mode of redress is by forcing the losing defendant to pay the plaintiff.

The reason why recovery damages sometimes soar into the millions of dollars is because other than compensatory damages designed to put the plaintiff back in the same position he would have been in had the injury never occurred (thereby "making him whole"), courts sometimes grant additional punitive damages on top of that. These type of punitive or treble damages are usually extremely high, and designed with punishment in mind. In one case I read about, a defendant was found by the court to be liable for intentionally setting his neighbor's cat on fire and burning the kitty to death. The court awarded a mere $200 of actual damages for the cat, regarded as personal property, but slapped something like an additional $5,000 of punitive damages to punish the defendant for his outrageous action. This is what justice is all about and the type of grievances our pro-litigation society was meant to protect.

Disclaimer: Discover is a paid advertiser of this site.
Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.

Feed for this Entry

5 Responses to “Positive Comments About Living In A Litigious American Society Obsessed With Filing Lawsuits” 

  1. Mimoji says:

    How about the robber that sues the woman whose house he broke into because when he broke into her house, he stumbled on a set of knives and injured himself. I believe he won the suit. Read about this in Express.

  2. Raymond says:


    You must point the location of that article out to me. Sounds funny.

    Reminds me of the recent wacky case of nut job administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson who sued a Washington D.C. laundromat for losing his beloved pair of pants, and asked for $54 million, the alleged cost of inconvenience and mental anguish. Obviously he lost the case and later lost his reappointment to the judicial bench. I have a friend who knew Roy Pearson personally. Apparently he was a brilliant mind back in the old days - that is until he went psycho.

    I agree these are all entertaining cases, but the vast majority of claims that get litigated serve vital roles in shaping our society for the better.

  3. Mrs. Micah says:

    What I think is sometimes outrageous is the amount of money asked. There was a German of Lebanese (or Syrian) descent who was "disappeared" by the CIA for 6 months and interrogated until they realized they got the wrong guy. He sued the us for $75,000. My response was "What?" He wanted lost money from the job and I think a little for damages for his family thinking he was dead or had abandoned them. Struck me as sensible. Or my mom was on a jury that awarded an injured woman the money to remodel her house to fit her mobility issues. Again, makes sense.

    I like that that's possible...but the amount of money some of these people want and the lack of personal responsibility in some cases is outrageous.

  4. Mrs. Micah says:

    PS It was a "What" of "that's all he wants?"

  5. Raymond says:

    Mrs. Micah,

    Wow...that is all he claimed for? Usually plaintiffs bring a very high initial claim because they don't want to waive the possibility of asking for a higher amount later on in the future due to estoppel reasons. $75,000 seems extremely low for what he may have suffered. $75 million would have been a better starting claim.

    Frequently you have to look at the identity and circumstances of the defendant to determine how much they can afford to pay. In his case, the defendant would have been the United States federal government - a defendant with extremely deep pockets. If I was representing him, I would have brought an action for $100 million at least. False imprisonment is a serious claim, depending on the specifics of his case.

Leave a Reply

If you liked this site, please Add To Bookmark and/or Subscribe To A FeedReader

Search this site