From the liberal viewpoint, should frivolous lawsuits be eliminated?

Question

Take for example lawsuits brought against doctors or hospitals, or drug manufacturers, that do not actually prove fault, but receive huge settlements for trial lawyers and drive up costs for average citizens.

I have seen medical research that shows that the incidents of cerebral palsy did not decrease in any way after John Edwards won his lawsuit. If the link was there, would not the number of incidents have decreased as the number oc c-sections increased?

If the facts presented in a case are later found to be false, or the results do not support the facts, should the lawsuit be overturned and the money returned?

Answer 1

A frivolous suit would be one in which I had no basis for my claim or one where my claim were so far removed from reality or the issue of any real liability. For example, suing a drug manufacturer for "mental anquish" over a drug that I had never taken, or had taken but suffered no ill effects from. Or suing CNN for all for all of the bad news -- clearly that's frivolous.

Conversely, if I am injuried by a defective product then the manufacturer is liable for my loss. Calling that frivolous is a slap in the face of anyone who has been injured by a defective product. Anyone who would restrict those suits obviously only cares about the bottom line, not the people victimized by a careless or uncaring company, doctor, hospital, etc.

Product liability actually reigns in costs borne by the general public as it gets defective products out of the marketplace, incompetent doctors out of practice, and cleans up dirty hospitals and places the responsibility for making the victim whole again upon the guilty party instead of the public welfare system. Punitive damages serve as notice both to the defendant and others that their behavior is not acceptable and will be punished

If a suit for damages is ultimately successful, then the plaintiff HAS proven fault, so says the jury! You're not going to get a settlement otherwise! I have served as a juror on product liability suits and one of the questions that we had to answer before even discussing the damage award was, "Did the actions of the defendant proximately cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff?" If the answer to that question was "No" then we didn't even discuss the issue of an award. The case was over, our job was done. If the answer to that question was "Yes" then there's your proof of fault, my friend!

Answer 2

We can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. So while some lawsuits are frivolous they serve a purpose. If a lawsuit is truly frivolous it will usually be shown so in court, if not settled outside of court.
I heard GWB refer to "frivolous asbestos lawsuits". This is an oxymoron. Cancer or death are not frivolous.
While I agree that attorneys make too much money off these lawsuits, the system serves as a good deterrent against unsafe and unhealthy products. We all know that businesses want to make a profit. Big businesses do cost analysis. If there is no fear of being held accountable we'll end up with more cost cutting and more dangerous products.

Answer 3

A lawsuit without merit is eliminated just after it is filed ---- through either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

What you may not understand is that, with the drug manufacturers for example, when a manufacturer puts a product into the stream of commerce which causes physical damages to a person or other property, that manufacturer can be strictly liable. This means negligence does not have to be proved. So long as the product was the legal and proximate cause of the persons injuries, the manufacturer can be found strictly liable by a judge or jury.

Answer 4

I don't understand what you mean by frivolous lawsuits. Take for example an actual case. A little girl was swimming in a public swimming pool. The drain in the pool was improperly installed the little girl was actually disemboweled by the drain. She died in the pool. So how much would this be worth to you if this were your child? Would this be a frivolous lawsuit? This case was won by John Edwards, candidate for VP in the last election. What if your child were born with cerebral palsy because the doctor botched the delivery? What kind of compensation would be fair for the child's destroyed future and your expenses for the rest of his life? It's all frivolous until it happens to you, right?

Answer 5

The problem is how to eliminate frivolous lawsuits without eliminating justified lawsuits.

In most cases where there are "huge" settlements, there is some fault, or the company would not agree to make a huge payout. The fact that the fault is not yet proven in court does not matter, because the huge settlement indicates that the company believes that it would most likely be so proven when in court.

In cases of small settlements, it may just be that the company settles to avoid the costs of the lawsuit.

Why do we want to allow lawsuits in general? 1) Otherwise the cost of the fault is borne entirely by select consumers who are injured or harmed by the product -- if I lose the ability to walk because of a faulty product, it is only fair that that cost be borne by the company whose fault it was. 2) Unless companies fear that their mistakes will cost them, they will have little or no incentive not to make mistakes.

Answer 6

Frivolous lawsuits need to be thrown out from the get-go. What you are talking about are not frivolous though. Certainly some get completely out of hand, and I do think that people should be penalized. But thanks to Republican efforts, the cap in Indiana is $50,000. So, a human life is worth about $50,000. If some company's lack of ethics took the life of someone I loved, they'd owe me a lot (I would give most of it to charity - honestly). It isn't the money, in nearly all cases. But money is the only way we have to punish companies and individuals whose neglect causes death.

As far as doctors go, 44,000 to 98,000 people die annually due to medical errors. If it's your loved one - what if they're a single bread-winner? - who pays for that loss when it's due to mismanagement?

It's a tough call, but until we can come up with some other form of punishment, the court system is all a victim has when a loved one is killed or injured.

Answer 7

IF it can be proven as frivolous, of course.

But since I work in a law firm that does defense work in civil litigation, I can tell you from experience this the type of lawsuit you describe is by no means confined to either party. Frivolous lawsuits are money oriented, not ideology oriented.

Go to your law library and do some basic research.

Answer 8

Absolutely NOT!

There have been quite a few studies over the past 10 years since the Republicans have been attemping (and also passing) this sort of legislation. These studies have proven that the number of friv. lawsuits in a very very very small number.

Additionally, all this propaganda that the public suddenly has heard, is being used by the phar. and medical industries to influence their opinion with, like I stated before, incomplete information.

Answer 9

Yes. Not only that, but those who initiate frivolous lawsuits should, if ruled against, be fined heavily for the court's time and taxpayers' money. I don't know that it's a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

Answer 10

Yes, they need to be eliminated because they cost taxpayers (poor and middle class) money to pay the legal system and they give more money to lawyers and attorneys who already have plenty.