Articles Posted in Frivolous Lawsuits

A poll recently released by the Defense Research Institute found that an overwhelming majority of respondents found that our civil courts are fair.

Check out the DRI’s release here. Note that the headline says “41% Doubt Fairness of Civil Courts” when the article explains that 58% expressed confidence in court decisions.

There are other interesting nuggets here as well. 83% said that the side with the most money for lawyers usually wins. That’s really interesting in terms of personal injury litigation, where generally only one side has money for lawyers, and the other side only has a lawyer at all because of the existence of a contingent fee agreement.

One of the biggest names in the “legal blog” field is Overlawyered.com, primarily written and edited by Walter Olson. The site’s self-description states:

“Overlawyered.com explores an American legal system that too often turns litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its participants at the public’s expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform and accountability.”

I love the site, and read it nearly every day even though as a trial lawyer I am clearly on the other side of the debate. I often disagree with Mr. Olson, but over the years I have grown to respect the work he does.  He was even kind enough to speak one year to my Insurance Law class at the University of Baltimore School of Law.  We agree on more than I thought we would.  But, either way, I think Overlawyered is usually intellectually honest. One of the main things we see on Overlawyered is sharp critiques of lawsuits seen as frivolous or unfair.

Hot of the presses is a new “study” on “Tort Liability Costs for Small Business” from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s tort reform propaganda ministry, the dubiously named “Institute for Legal Reform.”

Your Sources Matter

This report wears the sheep’s clothing of objectivity, but an examination of the sources and methods it uses reveals the wolf beneath. Consider this:

Peter King is one of my favorite sportswriters. His Monday Morning Quarterback column for Sports Illustrated has a regular section called “Ten Things I Think I Think.” He is an intelligent guy and a better writer than me, so instead of coming up with an idea of my own I stole his. So here are some things I think I think (but I might be wrong):

Walter Olson points out that the $75 million liability cap in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 does not override state law remedies that may apply to the BP oil spill. His point is that the $75 million cap in the federal law may not be the upper limit of BP’s actual liability, depending on the amounts recoverable under state law. Yeah, but lots of states have damages caps that apply to common law tort claims arising under state law. I do not know if Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida have caps that would apply, but I think it’s an important piece of information to know if you are analyzing whether the damages cap in the federal law needs to be changed.

Many lawyers in Maryland (and elsewhere, presumably) believe that to be admissible, expert opinion evidence needs to be accompanied by some sort of magic words like “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.” First, I think that is not the law. I think it is sufficient if it is clear that the standard is “more likely than not” for an expert in whatever field is applicable. And I think if the law is that some magic words are required, that is a stupid requirement that should be changed. It is clunky, cumbersome, overly technical, and a perfect example of lawyerspeak that clues the jury in to ignore whatever follows it. The court has just accepted the witness as an expert. It should be clear to everyone that his opinion testimony is offered as that of an expert in the field. Why do we go out of our way to make our legal proceedings as cumbersome, time-consuming and annoying for the jury as possible?

You know why? Because reform is supposed to make something better, not worse. I am stealing the phrase “tort reform” back from those who would destroy injury victims’ rights for the sake of simple economic expediency. So here are John Bratt’s proposals for Maryland tort reform.

First, do away with the antiquated “contributory negligence” standard. In Maryland, if you are even a teensy, eensy bit negligent, you can never make a recovery in tort. “But wait”, exclaims a chorus of the uninformed, “that’s not fair- if you are negligent it is your own fault.” Oh really? What about a pedestrian who looks left, but not right and then a drunk driver runs him down? His fault, huh? Good thing Donte Stallworth ran that guy over in Florida, not Maryland. In our state, there is a good chance that guy loses his case against the drunk driver. Maryland should abandon this unfair standard and move to a contributory negligence system such as those in use in 44 other states.

Second, our legislature should appeal the “actual malice” standard to recover punitive damages. What this means is that in order to recover punitive damages, you must prove that whatever the defendant did was not only intentional but done out of specific ill will toward the injured person. There is a great illustration in the news right now. A 20-year-old college student, a pedestrian, was run down and killed by a repeat drunk driver, who then left the scene. It turns out, he was captured on various cameras driving erratically throughout the city before the fatal collision. That poor young woman’s family will not be able to recover punitive damages. Is that fair? This is a case where allowing punitive damages is not only morally right but would provide a benefit to society by showing that this conduct will not be tolerated n the community.