Without a doubt, if we are committed to allow anyone to file suit over alleged injury, we should be equally committed that innocent people and their insurers be compensated for the time and expense for responding to a suit, IF the suit is determined to be frivolous by a court.
It is misleading, however, to connect the type of suits mentioned in this article to the overall costs of tort liability in the U.S. A much bigger source of court costs arises from securities lawsuits, investors essentially suing other investors over the allocation of losses or less-than-expected profits.
While most of the cases mentioned in the article (save one, see below) appear to qualify as “frivolous,” that is rarely so clear. Supposedly “frivolous” lawsuits can arise from very serious injuries. If a child of mine were permanently injured in a freak accident, and required a lifetime of costly care as a result, I would probably sue any remotely related party to seek adequate compensation, even if my child was partly at fault. I would find it very distasteful to do so, and could rightly be severely criticized, but it certainly wouldn’t be “frivolous.”
I hope courts will maintain a standard that a suit claiming no serious injury or alleging serious misconduct be dismissed as frivolous, with the plaintiff and/or its attorneys compensating the defendant. I would hate to be the target of a frivolous suit. That said, I don’t think they constitute an epidemic.Our problem with tort costs is the result of a societal choice about how to manage commerce and disputes that arise from it.
P.S. Regarding the one supposedly frivolous suit mentioned in the article that may not be frivolous: From the facts presented after clicking the link, we don’t know if the dog owner libeled the animal care facility. Depending on the circumstances, that may not be “frivolous.”
Without a doubt, if we are committed to allow anyone to file suit over alleged injury, we should be equally committed that innocent people and their insurers be compensated for the time and expense for responding to a suit, IF the suit is determined to be frivolous by a court.
It is misleading, however, to connect the type of suits mentioned in this article to the overall costs of tort liability in the U.S. A much bigger source of court costs arises from securities lawsuits, investors essentially suing other investors over the allocation of losses or less-than-expected profits.
While most of the cases mentioned in the article (save one, see below) appear to qualify as “frivolous,” that is rarely so clear. Supposedly “frivolous” lawsuits can arise from very serious injuries. If a child of mine were permanently injured in a freak accident, and required a lifetime of costly care as a result, I would probably sue any remotely related party to seek adequate compensation, even if my child was partly at fault. I would find it very distasteful to do so, and could rightly be severely criticized, but it certainly wouldn’t be “frivolous.”
I hope courts will maintain a standard that a suit claiming no serious injury or alleging serious misconduct be dismissed as frivolous, with the plaintiff and/or its attorneys compensating the defendant. I would hate to be the target of a frivolous suit. That said, I don’t think they constitute an epidemic.Our problem with tort costs is the result of a societal choice about how to manage commerce and disputes that arise from it.
P.S. Regarding the one supposedly frivolous suit mentioned in the article that may not be frivolous: From the facts presented after clicking the link, we don’t know if the dog owner libeled the animal care facility. Depending on the circumstances, that may not be “frivolous.”