|
"Frivolous" Lawsuits News
Journalists
Expose the True Meaning of "Frivolous"
 Los
Angeles Times Report (August 14, 2005)
"Legal
Urban Legends Hold Sway"
"Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led
campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system."
Palm Beach Post (April 21, 2005)
"A
Lawsuit Myth Goes Up in Smoke"
"Florida's 'notorious' tobacco lawsuit isn't an argument for
tort reform. Lawyers in that case saved lives by taking on an industry
notorious for hooking children on a deadly product, lying about it
and leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab."
Anniston Star Editorial (March 28, 2005)
"Nothing
Frivolous"
"Forget all the distractions. At its core, asbestos lawsuits
are about people harmed, quite often lethally, by the negligent actions
of institutions and their managers. ... In this context, President
Bush's use of the word 'frivolous' when describing asbestos litigation
is callous, if not downright offensive."
USA Today Column (January 30, 2005)
"Legal
Myths: Hardly the Whole Truth"
"Have you heard about the guy who injured himself while using
his lawn mower as a hedge clipper, and then won $500,000 in a lawsuit
against the lawn mower company? How about the woman who threw a soft
drink at her boyfriend, slipped on the wet floor, and then won $100,000
in a lawsuit against the restaurant? These are only two of the common
examples of lawsuit abuses that are fueling the call for 'litigation
reform.' They are also completely untrue — part of a growing
collection of legal mythologies that are appearing widely in the national
media...
"Both stories have been attributed to the
Stella Awards, an annual listing of loony lawsuits. But the Stella
Web site points out that they both are complete fabrications... Legal
legends fit the stereotype of litigation so well that their falsity
becomes secondary...
"There is, however, a great difference between using urban legends
to dish on some actress and using them to make massive changes in
the law. So as we begin this latest debate over tort reform, one small
piece of advice: If you hear about a case that is almost too good
to be true, it probably isn't."
Washington Monthly (October 2004):
"False Alarm: How
the media helps promote the myth of America's 'lawsuit crisis'"
"The current PR campaign by the insurance industry and other
big corporations [to limit Americans' legal rights] is just the latest
iteration of a long fight tracing back to the 1950s. That was when
plaintiffs' lawyers started breaking down some of the legal barriers
that had long protected industry from responsibility for injuries
to workers and consumers and opened up jury pools to make them more
representative of the general public... Politically, it was a lot
easier to attack juries and trial lawyers than the popular consumer,
civil rights, and environmental protection laws they enforced—or
the injured victims they represented... The plain fact is, most lawsuits
are neither ridiculous nor lucrative."
Des Moines Register Editorial (September 23, 2004):
"A Frivolous Notion: Capping Malpractice Awards Won't Put A Dent
In Health Care Costs"
"One of the campaign ads Iowans have been seeing lately suggests
that eliminating 'frivolous' lawsuits is one of the most important
steps toward making health care available for all. What nonsense.
In the first place, it is impossible to write a law that is capable
of pre-determining which lawsuits are 'frivolous' and which ones have
merit. Laws that purport to limit frivolous suits in fact end up capping
the potential awards in all lawsuits. And, capping malpractice damage
awards will not help lower health care costs. Malpractice premiums
account for about .5 percent of the nation's health care costs. That's
right, one-half of one percent of the total $1.6 trillion Americans
spent on healthcare in 2002 . . . Caps tend to help insurance companies,
not doctors or their patients."
Updated August 2005
|
