Acton Institute PowerBlog - Entries tagged as tort reform

This Guy Has No Standing

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

In an attempt to oppose legislative action on tort reform, Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers “filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court.”

“The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits,” Chambers says. “Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God.”

I don’t think it quite works that way. In order to have standing to bring a suit, you not only have to be affected, there has to be “a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.”

Somehow I don’t think God is taking orders from the Douglas County Court. As he said in another (perhaps not so altogether different) context, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?” and “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”

My immediate reaction to hearing the case and that it had to do with tort reform was that the guy must be providing an example of a completely idiotic and frivolous lawsuit in order to spur action on tort reform. I never thought he’d be opposing it! There’s likely to be a backlash to outlaw this sort of stunt and all kinds of other frivolous litigation.

Update: The Volokh Conspiracy has a link to a case brought against “Satan and his staff,” in which the case was dismissed for similar reasons: “the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district.”

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor in Bible and Theology at 07:22 | Comment (1) | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
bible and theology, frivolous lawsuit, god, standing, tort reform

In this Case, the Loser Isn't Paying...

Friday, May 4, 2007

...at least not yet.

Check out this disheartening AP story, “Judge: Cleaner owes me $65 million for pants; 2 years of litigation x 1 pair of trousers = headaches for family business.”

The US court system shouldn’t be a venue for the pursuit of a personal vendetta. This case clearly shows how lawsuits can be used to bring incredible expense and stress on the defendant, regardless of his or her guilt or culpability. And unless things change, like moving to a loser pays system, the plaintiff risks nothing.

All too often the real victims in these kinds of lawsuits are hardworking small business-owners, whose livelihood is threatened. And when small businesses suffer, the entire community suffers with them.

Is the neighborhood being made better off by Pearson’s lawsuit? Is Pearson protecting them from a business that engages in false advertising? If Pearson drives the Chungs back to Korea, the neighborhood will be made worse off, not better, and Pearson will have settled a petty grudge.

When business enterprise and successful entrepreneurship makes you the target of predatory lawsuits seeking only deep pockets, there’s something deeply wrong with the tort system.

In this monograph, Ronald Rychlak argues that the tort system needs to be reformed with a view toward the common good.

Let’s hope in this case Pearson doesn’t get off scot-free. It seems like that even in the absence of a formally-instituted loser pays system, the arbitrating authorities should have the power to dismiss Pearson’s case with extreme prejudice and require him to pay all the court costs and legal expenses for the defense.

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor in Business and Society at 09:01 | Leave a comment | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
common good, entrepreneurship, loser pays, tort reform

Well, Allow Me to Re-tort

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Last month the Pacific Research Institute released a report estimating that costs associated with the American tort system exceed $865 billion per year (HT). Check it out for a detailed breakdown and comparison of these costs with other sectors of the economy and government spending. (Here’s a WSJ op-ed from the authors of the report.)

ABC’s 20/20 had a segment last week on the largest lottery winner in history, Jack Whittaker of West Virginia, who won $315 million in 2002. It’s a sad story for many reasons, but I want to point out one aspect of Whittaker’s tale.

At the time of his jackpot, Whittaker owned a successful construction company that was “doing $16 million to $17 million worth of work.” According to the story, Whittaker “enjoyed years of success with few complaints, but less than a year after winning the lottery things began to change.”

“I’ve had over 400 legal claims made on me or one of my companies since I’ve won the lottery,” said Whittaker.

When asked why that might happen, Whittaker said it’s because “everybody wants something for nothing.”

Rob Dunlap, one of Whittaker’s many attorneys, said Whittaker has spent at least $3 million dollars fending off lawsuits.

Another recent development in tort news is the mainstream acceptance of animal law, which will likely be front and center in any class-action lawsuit resulting from the poisoning of thousands of pets via Menu Foods products. Are pets persons or property?

Amy A. Breyer, one of the only full-time Chicago-based attorneys who specializes in animal law, says that when animals are considered property, as they are in Illinois, they have no voice in the courts.

For more reading on the devolution of the American tort system, check out Trial by Fury: Restoring the Common Good in Tort Litigation, by Ronald J. Rychlak, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Mississippi School of Law.

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor in Business and Society at 10:42 | Leave a comment | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
animal rights, class action, lottery, menu foods, tort reform

'DO NOT put any person in this washer'

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, M-LAW, started a contest to find the wackiest warning labels on consumer products ten years ago, and they’ve just released this year’s list of winners (HT: Slashdot).

Topping the charts is the warning attached to a front-loading washing machine: “Do not put any person in this washer.” Other hits include:

“Never use a lit match or open flame to check fuel level.”
“Don’t try to dry your phone in a microwave oven.”

The contest is part of the group’s efforts to "give us a chance to tell the inside story of how our nation’s legal system has become so erratic that these types of labels are necessary,” said Bob Dorigo Jones, president of M-LAW.

In his book Give Me a Break, journalist John Stossel includes a chapter titled, “The Trouble with Lawyers,” and writes that these wacky labels are a form of “verbal pollution.” He says, “Lawsuits also disrupt the information flow that helps us protect ourselves. We ought to read labels.” But when we are overrun with inane labels of this kind, “people respond to it by ignoring labels we should read.”

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor in Business and Society at 07:04 | Leave a comment | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
john stossel, labels, lawsuits, m-law, tort reform

Tort Law on Trial

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Tort reform has been on the political agenda for some time. Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok make a unique contribution to the debate in their new monograph, Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial (Independent Institute).

The first lines are clever:

Recently each of us has successfully sued more than a half dozen large corporations. No, we are not outrageously rich plaintiffs’ lawyers or the attorney general of New York. In fact, neither of us even knew that we were a party to these suits until we received a letter telling us that a lawyer had sued on our behalf.

The authors examine a number of issues surrounding the tort debate: whether race and poverty influence jury decisions (they do); whether judges would be better arbiters of damage awards than juries (not as much as one might think); and whether regulating contingent fees would improve tort law (it wouldn’t).

What is uniquely compelling about this treatment is that the authors rely more on number crunching than anecdotal evidence to support their contentions. Their conclusions are cautious and reasonable.

What is missing from their account is the recognition that the excesses of tort litigation cannot be addressed by legal reform alone. There is a moral dimension to the problem: a failure to acknowledge and treat others as human persons and a consequent neglect of the demands of the common good. Interestingly, Judge and Jury gestures in that direction. The authors observe that most abuses in the current system occur when juries and judges are assessing claims affecting out-of-state parties—in other words, when the damages levied will affect people far removed from them (and whose personal dignity and rights can be more easily ignored).

For a full treatment of the moral dimension of the tort debate, see Ronald Rychlak’s Trial by Fury.

Posted by Kevin Schmiesing in Business and Society at 11:23 | Leave a comment | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
tort reform

Benefits of Tort Reform

Friday, March 17, 2006

A recent NBER working paper, “The Effects of Tort Reform on Medical Malpractice Insurers’ Ultimate Losses,” argues that “The long run effects of reforms are greater than insurers’ expected effects, as five year developed losses and ten year developed losses are below the initially reported incurred losses for those years following reform measures.”

A number of the specific changes in the history of tort law are discussed in Ronald Rychlak’s Trial by Fury: Restoring the Common Good in Tort Litigation, part of Acton’s Christian Social Thought Series.

Rychlak argues that in addition to the tangible and significant economic impact of current tort law, the system also “encourages litigation at the expense of forgiveness and understanding. It ignores the role that family members, friends, religious leaders, and others can play in bringing about reconciliation.”

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor in Business and Society at 10:27 | Comment (1) | Trackback

Defined tags for this entry:
economics, malpractice, tort reform