The Two Sides of Tort Reform (II)

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a retired attorney and come with the biases that might be expected.



In the first part of this essay, I discussed the need for free and unrestricted access to the Courts to compensate for injuries sustained resulting from negligence or irresponsible or reckless behavior. Notwithstanding this, too often silly or frivolous suits are brought; virtually all are dismissed at the trial or appellate level, but defending against them is expensive.



It is extremely difficult to verify many tales of absurd lawsuits. An email that has been circulating suggests the following outrageous suits: a 2000 $780,000 verdict against a furniture store for an Austin, Texas, woman who broke her ankle after being knocked over by her own wild child inside the store; a restaurant in Pennsylvania being ordered to pay $113,500 to a lady who slipped on a spilled soda and was injured. The soda was spilled because the plaintiff had thrown the bottle at her boyfriend moments before. There is one of my personal favorites about a man who had just purchased a new RV. He was tooling along the highway at 65 or 70 when he left the wheel to brew a cup of coffee. He sued the RV manufacturer for injuries sustained when the vehicle drove itself off the road and recovered nearly $2 Million and a new RV!



All of these are part of a hoax. None ever happened.



There have been outrageous suits, however, but nearly all are dismissed at the trial level and the rest on appeal. For example, a 1995 suit against San Diego and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 Million because of distress on seeing women in several men's' restaurants at a concert. He was so embarrassed and distraught he could not urinate for hours; a University of Idaho student fell from a third-floor dorm window while "mooning" his friends on the street below. He asserted that the University should have specifically warned him that he could fall. There is the New Jersey person injured when he was struck by a driver who had purchased a milk shake at McDonald's and became distracted when the cover came off and the liquid spilled. The injured person argued that McDonald's should have warned its customer about the dangers of driving while drinking a milkshake.



While all of these suits were unsuccessful, they did work at least partway through the court system and it hard to justify the expense incurred by the defendants. It is also difficult to not justify serious tort reform and limitations. But blanket limitations and restrictions are not the answer.



Sometimes suits appear at first blush to be absurd but are not. The famous or infamous (depending on one's perspective) hot coffee spill case against McDonald's is far too complex to set forth in this space. However, upon some research, the final result was appropriate and fully consistent with essential justice. A complete analysis is available.



The result of our being a litigious people is a plethora of silly warnings affixed to products. There is a Michigan organization grants an award each year for the most absurd product warning, most of which result from a concern about being sued. Among my favorites: A scooter with the warning "This product moves when used.", a drill purchased at a home improvement store, " This product not intended for use as a dental drill", and a warning on a rectal thermometer that, once used, ought not to be re-used in a different manner. Just yesterday I purchased a meat thermometer that is used while the steak is being grilled; the package warns, "Danger. Thermometer can get hot.".



So what's the answer? Certainly compromise is required. Blanket restrictions on all litigations are folly. On the other hand, crazy is crazy!