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

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-illustrate 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-scheme". The original

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>