Litigation Explosion or Epidemic of Injuries
In the articles written by Richard L. Abel and Peter W. Huber both have valid arguments with extremely different viewpoints on the litigation process. Peter W. Huber feels there is too much litigation in our country to where it cripples our society to become more successful. Huber feels there is less encouragement for citizens to take matters in their own hands and take responsibility for their actions. With a rather different perspective Richard L. Abel feels we have too little litigation rather than too much, he believes that manufacturers' products and services cause this and more litigation is actually needed. Abel feels that all injuries that happen to individuals should never go uncompensated. Whether you agree with Abel's theory or Huber's theory on the litigation process today, each makes perfect sense and also has statistics and scenarios to support their theory.
In Peter W. Huber?s article he starts by pointing out that taxes cost the country about eighty billion dollars a year which equals the profit the top 200 corporations in America make altogether. The type of tax in which he talks about is called tort liability meaning it is collected and disbursed through litigation. Once that process is complete it is the decision of the court to decide what amount will be paid and the time period. Huber also talked about the change from consent to coercion in which most accidents that occurred use to be handled by a contract between two individuals, he goes on to state that today that no longer seems to be the way things are handled. Today Huber feels that all the details are handled after litigation which provides the conclusion of the shift from consent to coercion ...
... middle of paper ...
...t. Last, both of their views feel that taxes effect the litigation to some point as well. Huber tends to have a stronger view against taxes on the process, however Abel mentions taxes on his views of the litigation process too.
In having to agree with either Huber or Abel?s views on litigation I must side with how Huber?s views on the process. I agree that citizens litigate too much on issues which simply to not need to be addressed. There are a great number of cases which are ludicrous and simply can be solved with common sense and are in no need of a judge or juries decision. If some would just act dignified instead of trying to get an easy buck our court system and country would be more successful and a less aggravating process.
Works Cited
Alvey, Richard L. The Social Organization of Law. Los Angeles: Roxbury Company,
2004. 115.
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
Margaret Fuller was one of the most influential woman of her time. She was a very intelligent woman that had concurred three languages by the age of thirteen. She used her knowledge to open the eyes of many people. She was a true Transcendentalist. She was very vocal about her views on gender roles of the nineteenth century even though they were not considered traditional. She challenged the conventional gender roles of the men and women. She was not afraid to tell women to fight for their natural rights. Her audience was composed of both men and women. She makes sure to point out that when she speaks of men, she is referring to both men and women. One of her greatest literature written was The Great Lawsuit. It was
Our forefathers were bright enough to establish a system of government with a series of checks and balances to maintain a balanced government. For the past decade a series of checks and balances has begun to fail our government. In our failing system of government inmates have taken advantage of the court system and have flooded it with an inconceivable number of frivolous lawsuits. Laurel Walters, a writer for the Christian Science Monitor, investigated inmates' lawsuits and found that these "recreational litigators...are suing the courts as an intramural sports activity." Action needs to be taken in order to rectify and protect "US" from this squandering of our tax payer provided funds and resources. Today in a world when knowledge is power, I'm ready to hand other tax payers an entire empire.
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
“The highest levels of the administration of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Chaney, his chief of staff, I Lewis “Scooter” Libby, presidential advisor Kar Rove, and Deputy Swcretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed that Ms. Wilson was a secret opperative for the CIA. They did this to relatiate against her husband for revealing that President Bush spoke falsy in his State of the Union address in claiming that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium fomr Afria. Exposing the identity of an undercover government agent is a felony. . .The Wilsons sued for their injuries, their case was dismissed on procedural grounds . .In fact, their experience reflects one of the most premisious aspect of the ‘Conservative
Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.
William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner. The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Harvard University Press, 1987.
Money is power, and its proved often in the courts. Those who have money can afford expensive attorneys unlike the common folk. This lin...
In an idealistic world, tort reform was passed to “create and maintain a fair, honest, and predictable civil justice system that balances the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants” (Houston Chronicle). There are many ways to measure how well it has actually met this goal. I believe that on some levels tort reform is a good idea that can be very helpful overtime, but I do believe that there are some issues with it that still need to be addressed.
In a civil case, the victim usually hires a private attorney to determine if the offender is liable for the harm caused to the victim. The act that caused the harm is known as a “tort” in the civil court system. The victim controls all key decisions of the case, such as whether to accept settlement or go to trial. The victim of a civil lawsuit is seeking to be compensated for the harm caused, usually with money. The burden of proof is a “preponderance of evidence” which means that one side’s evidence must be more persuasive than the other. There are time limits on how long a victim has to file a civil lawsuit known as statutes of
The government use of taxes plays a crucial role in today’s economy as well as personal finances, it has and will continue to leave its mark on the world we live in.
In order to analyze our “sue happy” society one must first find out, what actually is a lawsuit? A lawsuit is a legal action brought by a plaintiff, a person who claims to have been wronged, against a defendant, the person being sued. If a judge decides that a case has enough evidence to go to trial then the verdict may be decided by either a judge or a jury. Yet, 90 percent of cases reach a settlement out of court. (Cannell)
People today are not sueing to rectify matters. There is no purpose in lawsuits today. I believe everyone is out to get an easy buck through the judicial system. It is almost inevitable if people spill hot coffee on themselves that they will win a lawsuit against the company that served them that coffee. People believe that nothing is their fault and that someone (the defendant) should pay. The problem with the judicial system today is that people are sueing all the time and winning in court with ridiculous cases.
The U.S court system has numerous cases in it, they range from multi million dollar cases (including the bank crisis, or the car business for example) to less severe cases called torts. A tort is a legal term defined as “ A wrongful act that does not include breach of contract. This offense damages the injured parties property or reputation, leaving that party able to gain compensation.” (Dictionary.com) The book The King of Torts is about a man named Clay Carter. He has a stable job, it doesn’t pay as much as he wishes. He in the scheme of one week goes from making $100,000 a year to making $5,000,000 in one case. This is all because he filed something called a mass tort (also known as a class tort).
From the 1990s, the reports that cover the compensation cases increased dramatically in the mass media (Almond, 2004). There is a view that a huge number of tort cases in the ‘compensation culture’ are unjustified and unfair. In the mid-1990s, the term ‘compensation culture’ first appeared in a famous British newspaper (Levin, 1993). Actually, this is an extreme view, which will be criticized in this paper. This essay emphasizes the compensation culture is a myth (Morris, 2007). There are three reasons: Firstly, the data of the tort claims declined in recent years. Secondly, some victims do not receive the compensation or enough compensation that they deserve. Thirdly, the mass media and public organizations created the ‘compensation