Are we too eager to sue one another in America today?

No

by H. Snowborne

Created on: July 07, 2009   Last Updated: July 24, 2009

For decades, Americans have been taught to believe that their society is a litigious one, that people are far too eager to hire willing lawyers to contest any argument in court. There, not only will you be vindicated with a favourable decision, you'll be richly compensated as well. But lawsuits are expensive and time consuming; they are stressful beyond what most people would call their comfort zone, and they often don't bring about satisfactory resolutions for anyone. The decision to sue someone takes serious thought, and a great many resources-that decision can't be made lightly, especially when legal redress is inaccessible for so many people. So what could be behind the belief that there is an apparent drive to sue "anyone" for any wrongdoing?

It's simple. Whenever there is no law restricting the activities of corporations or individuals, and whenever laws exist but remain unenforced, people will only have one option: they'll be forced to take legal action if they have the means to take redress. In reality, the vast majority of expensive lawsuits are launched by corporations against other corporations, although there are some (a small minority) launched by individuals against corporations for harm they've suffered as a result of corporate policy and practice. For most people, the time and money needed to sue successfully are just not available, but some can gain access to these resources by filing with litigators willing to work "pro bono", in order to set a precedent through successful "class action" suits. Some of the most famous lawsuits people have decided are just wasteful-the most famous example being the "too-hot-coffee" lawsuit launched against McDonald's restaurants-illustra te just how long these suits can drag on and result in such minuscule financial gain. This suit is actually a great example of the few restrictions placed on the activities of corporations we patronize all the time: it's also a sad testament to the reality about such lawsuits in general. They don't "pay", in terms of financial compensation. But in most cases such as this one, personal financial compensation is not the only goal of the suit.

This case (Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants) is often cited as an example of how we seem to have nothing better to do than to try to "strike it rich" by suing a big company with deep pockets-but the realities about the case contradict its reputation as an example of the "litigious society get-rich-quick-schem e". The original court decision awarded the plaintiff, then 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages when she suffered from third degree burns while trying to sweeten the cup of coffee she purchased from a local McDonald's. McDonald's restaurants had a policy at the time to serve its coffee at a temperature well over what could be defined as "safe", or even "normal" (130 to 140 degrees F) for hot coffee. The extreme temperature of the liquid caused the plaintiff to suffer from extensive third degree burns (medically defined as the worst form of burning, especially from hot liquid, this woman suffered from "debridement", a severe loss of genital tissue from the burns). McDonald's made a policy decision to serve their coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees Fahrenheit, even though they knew that such an overheated liquid beverage could easily burn the lips and throat of any customer on contact. McDonald's was well aware of the danger their product could cause, as 700 other similar complaints of severe burns were made against the company by other victims.

But nothing forced McDonald's to change their policy in favour of customer safety. There were (and still are) no laws in effect to ensure that they would change their restaurant equipment to brewers that kept the coffee at a safe temperature for consumption. Nothing forced the company to warn their customers about the coffee's high temperatures, and no law forced McDonald's to take responsibility for any pain or suffering the product could cause. Until that lawsuit set a legal precedent by declaring their corporate and retail activities to be negligent, McDonald's would have been free to continue endangering customers with their product.

The penalty McDonald's finally paid, incidentally, turned out to be far less than 2.7million, as McDonald's were able to appeal the initial decision over time. They were always declared negligent, but the damages paid to the plaintiff amounted to a fraction of the 2.7 million-about $160,000, with another $480,000 dollars in punitive damages. Now anyone interested in the case itself can look into the documents and learn that the lawsuit was in fact a last resort, as the plaintiff who suffered the burns was 79 years of age at the time of the incident and she faced over $20,000 in hospital fees to treat the severe burns. After appealing to McDonald's directly to simply pay her healthcare bills, they offered her only $800. It was clear to the jury in the case that the woman had suffered a great deal of pain and suffering from the company's negligent policy, so they ruled in her favour.

The fine itself was no deterrent to McDonald's, the original 2.7 million they were ordered to pay constitutes less than their profit from selling that coffee worldwide, for a day. But the negative publicity created by the lawsuit made so many people aware of the fact that McDonald's coffee was dangerous, and that McDonald's management made policy that could cause harm. It was that awareness, and its potential to damage profit in each McDonald's restaurant specifically, which forced McDonald's to change their policy in order to protect their patrons from similar harm. No one would argue against the fact that a law restricting McDonald's business practices from causing any foreseeable harm would bring about the same outcome...but to date, no such law exists.

We all hate to think that more laws and restrictions are necessary because ultimately we're afraid those restrictions will only apply to us. We buy into the idea that we should all be left to regulate ourselves, but we don't recognize that we must also protect ourselves from those who won't regulate themselves, or curb their activities so as not to cause harm or exploit others. In our political system, a vote buys you access to a representative, who is supposed to consider your interests carefully and convey your concerns appropriately in the legislation making process: however, an interested party with plenty of money to spend on hiring lobbyists to further their own interests over yours will always have more sway than any individual. That's a reality behind so much de-regulation that we have to acknowledge as a big factor in motivating litigation. The only recourse people have when they've been harmed by such activities is civil law, where precedent has to do the work legislation cannot.

Learn more about this author, H. Snowborne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.