Why does our court system allow so many frivolous lawsuits to be successful?

Dave W

Short answer is because they can. No laws against it.

Also, the lawyers are willing to take on "bogus" or frivolous cases on contingency, because they know they can get paid, by getting a settlement out of court.

To bring any lawsuit against a "rich" person, will cause them to expend thousands on fees to defend themselves.
Often, then, they settle out of court to avoid publicity, or legal costs.

If our laws would class these lawsuits for what they are: EXTORTION, then there would be many fewer cases like this.
OTOH, it would mean loss of one American privilege, the right to have your day in court.

Many people do feel aggrieved, or harmed, when in reality, there was no harm done.

Edit: I am aware of the hot coffee spilled on customer case, and I believe it was NOT frivolous, because of the actual scaulding, blisters and pain. McDonalds was wrong to serve coffee near boiling temperatures.
But, for every legitimate case, there are probably 2 that are really attempts at "extortion" when it comes to torts and mal-practice.

This could be reduced with some legislative guidelines to guide courts and lawyers.

ignant_slob

Because the cases are decided by people and people tend to let their emotions rule them in the end.

Pancakes

Money. Nothing more.

jokr8790

If a lawsuit is successful, it is by definition not frivolous. Emotional damages are not petty and are a valid cause of action. As to the hot coffee case, this was a verdict, arrived at by a jury, following a trial and deliberations. So unless you want to abolish the jury system I suggest you look at other things. If a case is truly frivolous it can be disposed of by summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings at the pretrial stage which happens all the time.

Reality has a Liberal Bias

It's the "deep pockets" philosophy -- some insurance company is going to pay, so the juries don't care.

LovesTheConstitution

If you did some research on the case in Albuquerque (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 1994), you would not use it as an example of a frivolous suit. The McDonald's quality assurance manager's testimony appears to have been convincing to the jury, though not in the way he probably intended.

In general, it is defendants who cry out that a lawsuit is frivolous. Are defendants always right? No. That is why we have judges and juries.

Persons who do not hear and read all the evidence are not in a position to say what is frivolous.

Carey T

I don't think statistics support the assumption that so many frivoulous lawsuits are successful. Yes we hear about the crazy one. But even the coffee at mcdonalds case has valid points to it. The large award there was based on punitive damages and totaled McDonalds coffee sales for like a day. Really that's not too bad, and if you had seen pictures of the injury it is not too much to ask.

But when all is said and done the median award for personal injury cases is not in the millions but much lower, and truly compensate people for there lost wages, medical bills, and pain and suffering.

john d

I can't believe how many times people use that case when claiming frivolous lawsuits are a problem. McDonalds got sued and lost because they were in the wrong and if you actually knew the facts maybe you wouldn't need to ask your question.

gdsb

Then it is a good thing that you are not in charge of determining what is frivolous and what is not. That is up to a court of law. Not the average joe or jeff on the street.

Joseph M

Judges are not doing their jobs. Such suits should be dismissed. It is not the system's fault, but the humans using the system.
____________________

Some will argue that the McDonald's coffee case was not frivolous (though I would say that the woman was stupid and her own actions caused her damages). But be that as it may, there are many cases that are allowed to go forward by liberal, activist judges that should have been dismissed.

One new case in point is that of the illegal aliens who are suing a man in Cochise County Arizona because he stopped them from trespassing on his land on their illegal trek into the US and held them for the Border Patrol. In days gone by, he could have just shot them. Now, they can sue him for protecting his property and the entire nation.

The judge should have dismissed the suit on his own motion.

We live in bad times when judges make laws rather than interpret them and will let any claim go to a jury which sees the courts as a lottery system.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

D-Dubb

Because our nation's judicial system is a joke. Sympathetic judges will allow cases to be heard when they have no business even being in the courtroom.

Less frivolous cases will be heard if American people could easily vote out a judge if they are not being fair.

phillipk_1959

Because Liberals believe if you drive your car into a brick wall it is the wall's fault not yours.

CriMsoNMiSSinG

Because republicans use the "blame everyone but myself" technique. If they point a gun down and shoot themselves in the foot, they will sue the flooring company for not making flooring that would move their foot out of the way, and they would sue the gun company for letting him shoot himself in the foot.
Republicans are very selfish, dumb people. In easy terms. They think about themselves, and how to bring others down to get themselves more money.
I'm sure they would be willing to throw a little child down on the road to step over a small puddle, so they wouldn't have to get their $5,000 shoes wet.

Basically, people these days are stupid and who knows how it got that far. Usually companies cave early so they don't get bad publicity. And have to pay that person millions of dollars for scamming them. So they raise their prices and all of US are stuck paying it because of THEIR greedy scams.

Elana

I take it you know EVERYTHING about that case and are in a good position to decide just how frivolous it is?

Sure, there is abuse, but in some ways, law suits are how this country gets safer - its why we have the safest cars on the road, for instance.

The flip side is it is why insurance is so expensive.

However, unless you were in court hearing the evidence, I don't think you're in the best position to be calling it frivolous.

Iwould B Leveleight

Because John Edwards is very convincing.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: