By Kristen Huang
In December 1997, Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city. She had fallen from the nightclub’s bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. It happened while she was trying to sneak out, through the window in the ladies room, to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. In this case, Ms. Walton was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses. In May 2000, a Philadelphia restaurant had to follow the verdict of paying Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was spilled on the floor because Ms. Carson herself threw it at her boyfriend thirty seconds earlier during an argument. Surprised by the verdict rendered in these cases? What led these people to file such lawsuits—especially since it was their own fault? Why did the court determine that they won? Many people in the U.S. have begun to feel appalled that they might someday be sued by a stranger. Let’s start from the beginning. The fear of lawsuits in the U.S. results from a sue-for-anything philosophy that was created in the 1960s. At that time, judges and legislators gradually became aware of the abuses of racism and other forms of discrimination. Thus they decided to create a neutral system in which people have the right to sue for anything and every dispute could be solved in a neutral way. Soon, however, lots of people and enterprising lawyers learned how to utilize this new “right,” as the law did not draw boundaries about who could sue for what. Even if you don’t have any money to hire a lawyer, you can make an arrangement known as a “contingent fee,” in which the lawyer’s fees are contingent upon the fact that a monetary award is given to you. That is, if no award is made, payment may not be required; if an award is made, the fee will be a percentage of the recovery. Sometimes, the plaintiff and the defendant would both agree to settle out of court. In these cases, the plaintiff still receives a considerable sum of money. Whether you have deep pockets or not, court costs and expenses of litigation can be taken from the amount awarded or settled upon. Filing such lawsuits has become a way to make quick bucks. High contingency fees motivate lawyers. They push questionable cases through the courts because they are willing to take risks for huge profits. The use of the justice system—with the “loser pays” rule—represents opportunity to them. There are now many websites and commercials for personal injury lawyers: “Have you been injured? Call me!” From another point of view, however, lawyers do have the responsibility to represent their clients, to put forward persuasive arguments in the best way they know how. As a result, suggestions have arisen such as limiting lawyers’ fees. But how will this reform work? No one can tell. Here is another famous case. A jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico, awarded nearly $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman who was burned by a cup of McDonald’s coffee that she spilled on herself while driving. To many people, it might be ridiculous that she sought compensation for the injuries caused by her own negligence. In the fist place, the compensation she received seems excessive. Secondly, personal responsibility appears to be ignored. Some argued that she should not have received money since her injuries were caused by her own carelessness. As an adult, she would have known that she could get burned if coffee was spilled on her skin. Furthermore, why was she awarded so much money, which means that her lawyer received a nice fee as well? Big corporations would like to settle out of court in these sorts of civil cases, because it might be cheaper than going to court. What we forget is that the damage those corporations have to pay will all be added to the cost of their goods. But controversial verdicts are simply the result of an imperfect system. The legal system was originally intended to provide justice but can be abused by smart lawyers. Some people argue that big corporations care little about public safety, and such verdicts mean that it is time for ordinary citizens to get justice. Some argue that juries are easily affected by the victims’ emotional appeals. But so many frivolous lawsuits cannot be ignored. Whatever the case, it is only in America that an ordinary citizen can file a civil suit against an international billion-dollar corporation and win. a
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Authors
The Taida Student Journal has been active since 1995 with an ever-changing roster of student journalists at NTU. Click the above link to read about the authors Archives
May 2024
|