Excessive Litigation: Lawsuits

One of my "mandates" was to address the issue of excessive litigation which affects not only doctors and our health care, but virtually every possible human interaction.

While researching "outrageous lawsuits", I came upon several sites that were dedicated to the subject. The first one I looked at must have been built with intentional irony: while providing examples of outrageous lawsuits, there were Google Ads along the side for law firms specializing in getting "quick cash" or "class action" lawsuits. But it had some mind-numbing examples of where common sense is replaced with nonsense.

Another site had examples of warning labels intended to avoid lawsuits... some real winners here.

California may not have a monopoly on outrageous lawsuits, but they get plenty. Perhaps it is because of their "West Wing" view of the law.

Okay, you've had your laughs (if you clicked on the links). But, it's not all that funny. Sen. Mark Hillman of Colorado testified before the Colorado state senate that litigation cost over $700 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. You think you don't pay it? The costs of litigation go right back into the cost of products and services... better believe it.

Of course, lawsuits are legitimate means of resolving differences that cannot be resolved in other ways. Daimler Chrysler (DCX) just lost a $105.5 million lawsuit; they will appeal. Two things are obvious to the reader:

• $98 million for punative damages is a lot of damage
• a product meeting all legal requirements for safety is not protected from the judicial process

Maybe DCX could have made the seats stronger. Maybe by making them stronger the seats could have caused other types of injuries in another type of accident (as DCX claimed). The appeals process will address these things, but juries are inclined to sympathize with families over corporations... and it is difficult to find the truth in conflicting "facts".

There are, of course, situations where individuals or corporations have been deliberately cheating others or causing harm. I suppose if DCX deliberately designed their seats so that they were dangerously flimsy, DCX should be punished to the tune of $98 million. The jury should have:

• looked at comparative seat designs of all major minivan competitors including whether or not competitors' seats were designed to perform in the same manner for the type of accident in question.
  
• seen evidence that the DCX design did not meet or exceed all Federal safety standards.
• received data from insurance companies that DCX seats failed more often in similar accidents than major competitors... and that more passengers were injured as a result.

If the DCX product met all safety standards and performed as well or better than competitors, then the jury should have decided for the defendant, DCX. If I had been a juror, I would have expected to see such evidence and would have decided according to the evidence... as the evidence dictated.

The DCX lawyers should have provided evidence that their product was as good or better than most competition and met safety standards. If they did not, DCX has either inept representation or an inferior product. If they did, the jury wrongfully awarded money to the plaintiff... who should have sued the jerk who drove into them at twice the speed limit.

But in today's climate of excessive litigation, it is not necessarily who is wrong that is sued, but rather who can pay.