Frivolous lawsuits are out of control

[Note: This article has not been published in The Tartan, is not approved by The Tartan, and represents only the personal opinions of this author. It was scheduled to publish in the Forum section of the 4/5/04 Tartan, but that issue was cancelled due to the printing of a racial slur in Natrat, the April Fool's humor edition. Afterwards, editors expressed concern with publishing this article on the newspaper website because of my opinion on an African American lawsuit described in this article. I am disappointed that it seems the Natrat incident is already becoming a cause of censorship.]

Fat people, smokers, and descendents of slaves all have something in common: they've filed frivolous lawsuits. In 2003 two obese teenagers sued McDonald's, claiming they weren't properly informed they were going to get fat. Gee, what'd they expect? Their suit has been dismissed twice in federal court.

Smokers have won large settlements from the tobacco industry because the industry failed to inform them of the health impact of cigarettes – in this case, the suits have relatively solid ground because of the companies' negligence and deceit. However, there have been profiteers who have tried unscrupulously to gain from the tobacco lawsuit craze.

These profiteers include state government officials, who have cashed in on the 1998 $206 billion settlement by spending the money on pork barrel projects. The tobacco settlement is essentially a financial partnership between the tobacco companies and state governments.

North Carolina has been giving some of its share of the tobacco settlement to – guess who? - Tobacco growers. Money which should go towards smoking prevention programs is instead going to tobacco farmers to give a boost to the North Carolina economy. Other states are using their tobacco funds to cover up budget deficits.

Last week, eight descendents of African-American slaves filed a $1 billion suit against Lloyd's of London, FleetBoston, and R.J. Reynolds for allegedly insuring the ships that transported slaves in the 1800s. Besides the fact that the events in question, though atrocious, occurred roughly 200 years ago, they also did not directly injure the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs are making efforts to explain how the plight of their long-dead ancestors has harmed them.

Deadria Farmer-Paellman, one of the plaintiffs, said, "Today I suffer from the injury of not knowing who I am - having no nationality or ethnic group."

Not knowing who you are is not a material injury. Therefore the plantiffs will need to prove the slave trade has caused them undue mental stress. There are thousands of immigrants who do not know who they are because immigration records were lost, or simply forgotten. Yet I suspect they do not go through any great mental anguish over not knowing the name of their great-great-grandfather.

Furthermore, it is worth considering that this case will injure innocent parties and does not punish any of the people responsible for the slave trade. None of the people currently employed at the insurance companies were involved in making the decision to finance slave ships. So if these companies are forced to pay a settlement, it may indirectly harm employees and stockholders.

The decision to sue insurance companies also seems fairly arbitrary. In truth, the plaintiffs could have just as logically filed suit against nearly any organization that existed 200 years ago – including the federal government.

Frivolous lawsuits have become part of a "compensation culture" that promotes the idea that individuals deserve hefty reparations for any injury inflicted upon them. Americans everywhere are scrambling to join in the frenzy of feeding off of the coffers of corporations that often find it more economical to simply grant out-of-court settlements.

These lawsuits harm everyone by increasing the amount of money companies need to spend on legal support, and thereby increasing the price of the products we buy. They also bog down the already-overwhelmed legal system and prevent legitimate cases from being addressed promptly.

This problem is especially apparent in the medical insurance industry. While many malpractice lawsuits are valid, there are some that are fraudulent, or simply an attempt to get money on a trivial claim. As a result, medical malpractice insurance has reached astronomical levels, and doctors in some areas are outraged over being forced to pay such exorbitant bills. In some fields, doctors have started switching to specialties with lower insurance costs, but this makes it difficult for patients to find a good doctor in any of the high-risk medical practices.

The U.S. legal system is far from perfect. In many ways, it is designed to put power in the hands of the injured. While this is an admirable goal, it also leaves a great deal of opportunity for abuse.

But can we say for sure who the blame lies with? For the most part, the plaintiffs who initiate frivolous lawsuits are to blame. But the attorneys who accept such cases should also shoulder some of the blame, along with the judges who sometimes make the mistake of awarding settlements.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that individuals can often hire attorneys on a contingency fee basis, paying fees only if the case wins a settlement. Corporations defending against these lawsuits end up with large legal expenses. Judges should more frequently require that the litigator in a frivolous lawsuit pay part of the defendant's legal fees.

There is some good news however. Last month the House of Representatives approved a bill -- nicknamed the "cheeseburger bill" -- to block frivolous lawsuits against fast-food chains. The proposal, formally titled the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act," recognizes that obesity lawsuits are really about people's failure to take personal responsibility for their own actions. The bill must still be approved by the Senate however.

Frivolous lawsuits have the potential to seriously impair the country's economy and send us on a downward spiral towards an increasingly litigious society. It would be nice to think that American citizens can be trusted to self-regulate and refrain from filing inane lawsuits, but this is clearly not the case. The judicial system is in need of reform, and voters would be wise to consider this during elections this fall.