Letters: Lawsuit abuse hurts all of us

Merriam-Webster defines “frivolous” as something that has “no sound basis in fact or law.”

As this definition suggests, frivolous lawsuits are those that have no merit. And regardless of who is filing the suit, if it has no basis in fact or law, it has no business in our courts.

Lawsuit abuse hurts Louisiana families and small businesses. It steals away job opportunities, compromises our health care and raises the cost of everyday goods and services.

In fact, a new nationwide poll found 89 percent of voters believe lawsuit abuse is a problem. This view spans the political spectrum, with 94 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Independents and 86 percent of Democrats in agreement.

According to the survey, released by the American Tort Reform Association and the grassroots Sick of Lawsuits organization, 78 percent of respondents say the nation suffers from too many lawsuits, and 73 percent are more likely to vote for a candidate for public office who supports lawsuit-reducing liability reforms.

To see complete results from the poll, visit http://www.ATRA.org. The message is clear: The vast majority of voters are concerned about the impact of rampant litigation on our society and want it to stop.

MELISSA LANDRY, executive director

Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Noel Hammatt: Sorry, not the same "chem".

2) Comment by DMJ - 10/09/2012

Torts are the common man's only weapon against large corporations. This is why Republicans want tort reform; they're the coporatist party, and getting sued hurts the bottom line of companies like Exxon, State Farm insurance, etc. What's ironic is that more regulation, which Republicans are also against, would reduce a company's liability and the need for civil litigation in the first place. It's kind of like how Republicans are against covering contraception but also against abortion. Oh well...

3) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 09/09/2012

I'm sure you have figured out that I am with you on that chem! Are you them "chem" that posted on a national website about something I posted? If you get a chance, would love to send you something you will enjoy as a "chem" [e-mail]

4) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

tort reform sounds the same to me as "socialists", "communists", "unions", and "liberals." Bad lawsuits are taken care of. If it should go to a jury, they ofter make the correct decision. If not, it is usally corrected on appeal. Many "frivolous" suits never make it to trial, being stopped by the judge. Tort reform is just another bogey man put out there by the right-wing loonies.

5) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 09/09/2012

@tradewinns: I am puzzled and playful upon reading your comment. Puzzled as to which of the main definitions of "moot" you are intending, whether you mean that the questions raised in my suit are of a purely academic nature, or whether they pertain to an unsettled question of law. As to the latter, isn't that the salient point in my comments on here. Often, it is the moot question, the one not previously ruled on, that is the important issue. After all, (I never asked anyone to accept my side as "factual," for we hope facts to emerge in any litigation,) as I pointed out in my commentary, it is precisely the nature of a new point of law or a new way of viewing laws that leads one side to say, Hey, wait a minute, we don't want to allow anyone to look at that! I would argue, for example, that the Superintendent in my case did NOT want to examine the veracity of her statements in a court of law. Her attorneys felt no need to do so, for they were relying on a slightly unsettled point of law, that is the total protection against being guilty of defamation. (That was the claim made by her attorney's, that based on Illinois protection of elected and official positions she could NOT BE GUILTY OF DEFAMATION, and the court seemed to buy it, hence his notice (of course indirectly) that were he to rule for the defendant's legal argument before any trial took place, that we would be liable for costs. It has, what I would call a definitely "chilling effect" on ever questioning the unsettled points of law. Bringing up new types of litigation to counter this is anathema to those in power, whether that power is political, governmental, or the power of powerful corporations. Those in power do not lightly relinquish said power. Of course, I could have just asked you, what do you mean by your use of the term "moot" here. :)

6) Comment by tradewinns - 09/09/2012

NH; accepting your side as facts, you could still get a ruling although no payment due to the protection clause for officials. most states have a cap of awards with the remaining monies lost or awarded by the legislature. i would consider your suit not frivilious but moot.

7) Comment by Bighug - 09/09/2012

You are correct, Noel. That is the definition I was speaking of, and I agree that it should apply only after a given number of frivolous suits.

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 08/09/2012

Barratry has a couple of meanings connected to this letter, in addition to the old meaning related to a ships crew causing damage to a vessel (I used to be the Master of a Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM) for the US Army and actually came across this old term). Both give a slightly different take to Bighug's comment below. On the one hand, one definition, in layman's terms, simply prohibits the practice of "ambulance chasing." Many states have laws dealing with this. In another definition, the one that Bighug is speaking to (please correct me if I am wrong Bighug) is the "exciting of groundless judicial proceedings" and in at least one statute in California, means three or more findings of what the author of the letter above would define as "frivolous lawsuits." I would caution that this latter point, requiring more then one instance, should be a requirement in any act passed, but then again, I'm not familiar enough with the Louisiana Revised Codes to know whether or not there is already something in place to deal with this? Any attorneys out there want to tackle this one? My reasons for the caution about having a law that allows action against an attorney before there is an actual "pattern" is that many new areas of legitimate litigation ( legitimate being, in part, defined as beneficial to the public welfare) begin as, what the author of this letter (and remember, her position is funded by groups that would rather NOT deal with some issues) and her members would claim is just "lawsuit abuse." Thanks Stephen. I appreciate your compliment.

9) Comment by Bighug - 08/09/2012

A good law against barratry in Louisiana would be a good start in solving this problem.

10) Comment by Bighug - 08/09/2012

Surveys have shown that many lawsuits could have been avoided if the offending party had merely apologized. In one case where a person receive a small injury due to negligence at a superstore, all that was asked was that the store pay the doctor bill, which was under $200. The store refused and a lawsuit was filed. The injured party received much more than had been asked. The store's cost was probably near $10,000.

11) Comment by Stephen - 08/09/2012

Noel Hammatt is a voice of reason.

12) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 08/09/2012

@tradewinns: There are a couple of concerns about your "loser pays" whjich is actually part of existing laws in most states. IF the case is determined to be frivolous, without merit, then court costs are usually assigned to the plaintiff filing the frivolous case. Here again though, it is not so simple. I filed suit in Illinois, a defamation lawsuit against a woman who was Superintendent of Schools in Rockford, Illinois. She made public statements, televised, against me. The evidence was clear that there was no validity to her claims. They were clearly defamatory, and they could, if believed, impact my ability to earn a living as an independent education researcher. So, evidence is on my side, there is clear and convincing evidence that she KNEW the statements were wrong, and they harmed me, in the sense I mentioned. A lawyer in Rockford took my case, pro bono and in good faith, and we filed suit against her, and she resigned the day she was served with the lawsuit. After months of research, it was determined that our chances of winning were very, very low, not because of the evidence which clearly supported my position, but because of some court cases that let this judge, and others, to believe that ANY government official in Illinois, acting in their official capacity, is totally absolved from any responsibility. There was a slight chance we could still win, based on some legal arguments, but the court made it clear that if we did not prevail on the arguments, then he would hold us accountable for filing a frivolous lawsuit. We would have had to reimburse court costs and the school district's costs. So there was no way to actually have an open hearing on the merits, because of the threat that a technical challenge could prevent the evidence from ever being heard. Sometimes there needs to be a "first" case which is labeled "frivolous" by those who have the most to lose. And any citizen on the street is not likely to have the funds to cover costs if their opponent has unlimited resources. Such as a large corporation or the public. Why do you not see more claims against the current administration for violation of laws dealing with disclosure? Because all the power is held in the hands of judges and influenced by.... politics (elected judges) and the power to dispense retribution and of favors (and I think EVERYONE has seen a lot of this in Louisiana in recent years! And Being_Stupid, I get your point... yet have to ask, If the judge is deciding" and that judge is a political creature dependent upon the politics of the moment.... then what hope to the lone citizen against the might of the corporate or political elites? Just wondering.

13) Comment by Being_Stupid - 08/09/2012

We would not need Tort Reform if we didn't have socialized medicine. The biggest misconception about healthcare today is that people think the United States has free market healthcare. That is completely false. = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLR3zGopz1Q. Milton Friedman opposed Tort Reform. The Judge should decide, not the Government.

14) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

"what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea ? a good start " ....

15) Comment by tradewinns - 08/09/2012

hammatt has a point. what may be frivilious to me may not be to someone else. however there is a simple solution. loser pays with the lawyer responsible for 1/2 the bill. lawyers will not take "pie in the sky" cases they do not believe in as much as the client. and like taxes, you should not be allowed to bankrupt out of payment.

16) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 08/09/2012

I think we file this survey under the "duh" factor. Who believes that a case, defined as "lawsuit abuse" is NOT a problem? There's a catch though... how do you know that case is "frivolous?" Do you know this BEFORE you have depositions, or fact-finding and investigations, or testimony under oath? Perhaps. Perhaps not! Before we jump on the "tort-reform" band- wagon. You might want to suspend disbelief long enough to actually examine cases that were labeled frivolous (perhaps by corporate lawyers"and then were discovered to have uncovered unsafe conditions that could be corrected, saving many of us from exposure to dangerous situations and substances. When companies want to buy off a potential claimant for what amounts to petty cash, in order to NOT change a dangerous practice that would be expensive to correct, then we all benefit from one brave person and her attorney taking the case forward. Lot's of tort reform is simply businesses trying to keep the veil down over their less than stellar safety records. There are already in place legitimate court responses to cases that are deemed frivolous ON THEIR MERITS, and not a priori.

17) Comment by Whatnow - 08/09/2012

There are too many money grubbing lawyers who takes these cases instead of advising their clients that the suits are frivolous.

18) Comment by Bighug - 08/09/2012

There are many frivolous lawsuits, and probably just as many creditable lawsuits never filed for various reasons. I know of one person who has a permanent limp because of a doctor's mistake. No lawsuit was filed, although we have all heard about how much is added to our medical bills to pay for their insurance.

19) Comment by lovemykids - 07/09/2012

So 89% of voters believe that lawsuit abuse is a problem. Are 89% of lawsuits frivolous?