The Seduction of the Frivolous Lawsuit

The Seduction of the Frivolous Lawsuit

By Myles L. Edmundson



         “I'LL SUE!”

         That was the often-uttered cry of Sally Brown, younger sister of the famous Peanut's character, Charlie Brown.  Moreover, it brings to mind one question.  Has Sally Brown ever actually sued anyone she threatened to sue?  If she has, she would be just one of innumerable plaintiffs in courtrooms across the United States.  How many people have sued another person, and really did not NEED to sue?  I have lost count of the number of people driving down the highway and intentionally riding their brakes with their goal being to cause an automobile accident so they can sue the other person, and get a new car at the defendant's expense.  This is what I call the Seduction of the Frivolous Lawsuit.  I can understand that the civil litigation is necessary to settle disputes, but I think we have gone too far with this.  It is a privilege that we have long since started to abuse.  It has gone into the realm of the ridiculous.

         Think about the medical industry.  This is a necessary system.  WE HAVE TO HAVE DOCTORS, OR ELSE WE WILL DIE OF THE SIMPLEST THINGS THAT A DOCTOR COULD CURE WITH RELATIVE EASE.  Yet, what are we doing to doctors?  We are suing them for Malpractice, and forcing the survivors to purchase Malpractice Insurance, which drives up their already expensive rates.  Now, before you tell me, “Myles, Doctor Bills are already expensive, because of new drugs, new treatments, and/or new technology.”  I realize this, but the fact that they have to have Malpractice Insurance drives their bills even further, because insurance, of any kind, is NOT cheap, and we ALL know it.  AND may I remind you, friends, that MY MOTHER (God rest her soul) was a doctor, so I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! 

         It works like this: Jane Doe goes to the doctor because she is not feeling 100% good.  NOW, for the sake of argument, before she actually goes to the doctor, she develops a preconceived notion of what is wrong with her, in other words she has diagnosed herself, which is something any doctor would tell you is NOT a good idea.  Anyway, Jane Doe goes to the doctor...Doctor Smith, we'll call him.  Doctor Smith looks her over, and tells her that she just has a minor yeast infection (exactly where DOESN'T MATTER).  He gives her a prescription and assures her that her infection will clear up in a few days.  Well, Jane is already upset with Doctor Smith because he did NOT tell her that her problem was not the terrible condition that she had originally envisioned was her problem.  However, again for the sake of argument, let us say that while Jane was listening to Doctor Smith, she hears what she wants to hear, in other words, her infection will clear up IMMEDIATELY!  Well she gets the prescription, and she takes it as directed.  The infection clears away in a few days.  Is Jane Doe happy?  NOT AT ALL!  She is very angry.  Why?  Because her infection didn't clear away fast enough to meet her overly elevated expectations, AND the doctor told her that her condition was something MINOR rather than what she THOUGHT was wrong with her to begin with.  What does she do?  First, she assumes that Doctor Smith lied to her, told her that her condition was minor when she was ACTUALLY suffering from something major, and gave her medicine that she didn't need.  Next, she hires a lawyer, let us call him Mr. Howe of the law offices of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, who pushes her to sue him for malpractice.  She does this.  What happens in the end?  She gets a lot of money for a yeast infection that was properly treated.  Doctor Smith?  He lost his license to practice medicine for properly treating a patient, and now works at Wal-Mart, because it is the only place that will hire him.  His colleagues now have to increase their Malpractice Insurance.  Ultimately, it is all the fault of some woman who thought she knew what was wrong with her, AND whose condition wasn't cleared away fast enough.  Now before anyone decides to argue that there really are quacks and/or unethical doctors out there who truly are guilty of Medical Malpractice, I am fully aware of this.  This doesn't mean that ALL doctors are unethical quacks.  I've heard, FAR TOO MANY TIMES, that all doctors are rich, and only care about pushing drugs and treatments on you so they can get richer!  That isn't a doctor, that's a business tycoon.  You'll find this kind of crook more often on Wall Street and on Capital Hill than you will in a Doctor's Office. 

         Now, I feel, at this point, that I may have implied that if all these frivolous law suits would go away that all doctors would not need Malpractice Insurance.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, Malpractice Insurance is a necessity because of such things as law suits, inaccurate diagnoses, foul ups in the doctor's lab, human error, AND unethical medical professionals who ACTUALLY push necessary drugs and procedures on patients.  Trust me Malpractice Insurance is necessary for doctors.  It is just one safeguard to make it that much more difficult for a doctor to loose he or her license.  I learned, from my late mother, that a doctor would have to do something monumentally stupid to loose his or her license.  As an example, let us look at this situation: Jane Doe (whom we met in the previous paragraph) goes to Doctor Smith (This time he really IS an unethical quack).  She thinks that she has a simple yeast infection (AGAIN, exactly where is Jane's business, and none of ours beyond the fact THAT she has one).  Doctor Smith, being an unethical quack this time, tells her that she is suffering from Uterine Cancer.  He tells her that she needs a hysterectomy.  He schedules this, performs it, and Jane recovers.  Well, Jane is suspicious, so she goes to another doctor...Doctor Jones.  Doctor Jones performs a battery of tests, knowing full well what to look for to tell that she was suffering from the aforementioned cancer.  He finds no such evidence.  In this case, Jane would be justified in suing Doctor Smith for Malpractice.  Also in this case, after the civil litigation Doctor Smith would be brought before a board of the American Medical Association, who would review his conduct and revoke his license to practice medicine for unethical conduct.  I am not sure, but, in this case, Doctor Smith might also face criminal charges for mutilating Jane Doe.

         However, it is not just in the doctor's office.  It is also out in daily life.  Remember my earlier statement about the driver who is intentionally trying to cause an accident on the highway, so that he or she can sue the other driver for a new car?  I know this happens, because one of my friends has a relative (I won't get more specific than that) who has obtained THREE CARS THROUGH CIVIL LITIGATION.  However, there is a positive side to this.  If you are the defendant in just this sort of case, you have the right to counter-sue the plaintiff for riding his or her brakes with the purpose of intentionally causing an auto accident for the purpose of obtaining a new car.  I can tell you that most of these people, who obtain new cars through civil litigation, are foolish enough to openly admit that they commit this sort of fraud.  Or perhaps I have simply met the ones who are not particularly bright.

         Now, for the purpose of this paragraph, I must refer to a joke told by Larry the Cable Guy (a famous “Blue Collar” comedian).  He referred to people who sue tobacco companies for getting cancer from smoking cigarettes.  Do I really need to point out the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS?  If you are considering suing the tobacco companies for getting cancer, I can shoot down your legal case by pointing out the Surgeon General's Warning on the side of your cigarette pack, which (though there are several variations in text) effectively states, “SMOKING CIGARETTES CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!”  These warnings aren't like your Mama saying now don't do that or you'll get hurt.  These are scientifically proven, legally required warnings telling you that YOU WILL GET SICK IF YOU SMOKE ENOUGH CIGARETTES.  Furthermore, I question the judgment and/or ethics of any judge who presides over a civil litigation against a tobacco company because some smoker got lung cancer and sued because he or she conveniently did not know they were going to get cancer.  Someone once said, “Ignorance of the law is not a defense.”  I would rather take that one-step further, and state, “IGNORANCE is not a defense.”  If your civil litigation is based entirely on your own ignorance, and you can not prove that the defendant DID NOT take ANY steps to warn you of the dangers of what you are suing about, then I believe YOU HAVE NO CASE AT ALL.  Trust me in cases such as the cancer-riddled smoker versus the “EVIL TOBACCO COMPANY”, the defendant gave the plaintiff ample warning that smoking will cause serious damage to the plaintiff's health.  This, of course, makes it all too obvious that the smoker wasn't ignorant of the detrimental effects of smoking on his or her health, it was actually because he or she did not bother to read the warning, OR read the warning and simply chose to ignore it.

         Now, having mentioned cigarettes and the health warnings on the packages, I am certain that someone reading this will immediately think to himself or herself, “Myles, what about years ago, before we knew that smoking tobacco was bad for you?”  To this question, I would answer, back then suing the tobacco companies was justified because people were ignorant of the effects of smoking tobacco.  This is why I stated, in the previous paragraph, if your civil suit is based on ignorance, and the defendant (in this case a tobacco company) did NOT take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to warn you of the health risks of their product (if such health risks are KNOWN to exist) then you have no case at all.  However, back before tobacco smoking was known to be hazardous to your health, civil litigation was justified, as I have already stated.  In fact, it is because of earlier law suits that the “Evil Tobacco Companies” are required to give ample warning to smokers and potential smokers.  Look at any pack of cigarettes, you will see the warning occupying one whole side of the pack (one of the smaller sides so as not to detract from their artistically designed front label).  Look at any cigarette ad, in a magazine or on a billboard, and you will find the warning prominently displayed in the lower right-hand corner of the ad.

         I am sure by now that some of you are probably thinking that I am badmouthing the whole idea of civil litigation.  If this is what you think, first you have not read this editorial as thoroughly as you should, and second I am not saying anything of the sort.  I fully understand that there are plenty of circumstances where civil litigation is necessary.  If a family is badly injured, in a car accident, because of a car dealer who knowingly sold them a car with a potentially dangerous mechanical problem, then that family has every right to sue that car dealer for damages.  But when the situation is something akin to the woman who sued McDonald's because “she did not know that her coffee was hot when she spilled it on herself” that is just some overblown ego looking for needless payback.  Some lawsuits are necessary and warranted, other lawsuits have no business being brought to court.  I personally think that lawsuits should be brought before a legal magistrate who would review the case, all complaints, counter complaints, and answers, and decide if it the plaintiff truly has a reason to sue the defendant, or if the plaintiff is simply frivolously suing the defendant.  Frivolous law suits are not the sole cause of our current financial crisis, but they certainly CONTRIBUTING to the problem rather than helping it.

         In closing I wish to say that civil litigation is a useful way to settle disputes that would otherwise erupt into violence.  It is just one of the things keeping family feuds (real ones, not the Game Show) rare occurrences.  We humans are violent by our very nature.  Someone hurts us, we instinctively want to hurt them back...fight or flight.  It is wired into all of us.  But vengeance, revenge, payback, call it what you will, is like a double-edged sword.  Swing it long enough, and you will eventually swing it too far and you will ultimately cut yourself in addition to your enemies.  We like to say we are not animals, so why are we continuing to act like animals by frivolously suing each other...just to get payback?  Is payback REALLY worth the time and trouble of a lawsuit?