For
years Americans and people from other countries have said that America is a litigation
happy country, that Americans will sue
for every little thing, anyone who watches the news sees the frivolous lawsuits
that go through our court systems every year. However, after reading The Myth
of the Litigious Society by David Engel, I have learned that Americans are not
as litigious as they are made out to be.
The majority of Americans injured each year do not even make a claim; rather, they lump their injuries, brushing them off for many reasons.
In
chapter seven, Engel speaks about the physical environment around us. He addresses how Americans face injuries
everyday and some say nothing, while others who are injured bring a
lawsuit. The majority of people would
rather “lump” their injuries then bring a claim. The first example he raises in this chapter is
stairs. A ninety-one-year-old woman was
attending a celebratory mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where she fell and was
severely injured; this woman chose to sue the church. Engel says that she was
“one of the 1 to 2 million Americans who fall and suffer injuries on stairs
every year…and litigation is extremely rare.”
This comment stood out because bringing a suit for falling on stairs
could be one of the reasons why America is seen as a litigation crazed
country. Another example that Engel
raises is automobiles. Within this
section he mentions Dr. Greg Gulbransen, who in 2002 ran over and killed his two-year-old
son while backing out of his driveway. Engel
also brings up the case with the elderly woman who was burnt by the hot coffee
from McDonald’s that she decided to place between her legs. This chapter showed that while some bring
lawsuits, the majority of American’s who are injured by their physical
environment choose to not to sue because they blame themselves for the
injuries. Situations such as the
McDonald's coffee being too hot and Dr. Gulbransen killing his son have led to
changes, but they are changes that most likely could have been accomplished
through the legislature and not lawsuits.
The
examples in chapter seven raised the question; can we truly blame the physical
environment around us for these injuries or are we better off not litigating
and continuing to lump these issues? For
instance, in the case of the McDonald’s coffee, the coffee was too hot for the
average consumer, but are they truly to blame when this woman chose to put hot
coffee between her legs while in a car. In
the case of the automobile, many Americans learned to drive without backup
cameras in their cars, and even with backup cameras people still need to turn
their heads because the cameras do not pick up every angle. In this case, can the doctor blame the
accident on the car or is he to blame because his two-year-old son was in the
driveway behind the car and he did not see him.
This
chapter stood out because these things are such a natural part of our everyday lives
and the majority of people never even consider saying that they are the cause
of injuries. Stairs are something that I
trip on, on a daily basis, but I have never once thought that there was someone
else to blame. All of these cases have
one thing in common lawsuits were brought.
Yet, these suits just seem silly and frivolous because the reason behind
the majority of the examples Engel’s mentions are due to the people's own
fault. For instance, McDonald’s coffee
was being made at too high a temperature, but the woman also contributed,
because from a young age we are taught to be cautious with hot objects;
therefore, many would know better to not place the hot cup of coffee between one’s
legs. The lawsuit that the elderly woman
brought against St. Patrick's Cathedral seemed frivolous because it was her
decision to walk up that particular flight of stairs. The stairs into the cathedral are steep, however;
there are other entrances that all visitors were made aware of. There were many causes to her injury; she
contributed to her own accident by choosing to walk up that flight of stairs;
she was older and not steady on her feet; yet, her family allowed her to make
that decision rather than insisting that she either have help or use a
different entrance.
If I had
the ability to reform the U.S. tort system I would set it up similar to New
Zealand’s social compensation system regarding lawsuits such as the ones
mentioned in chapter seven. The system
would allow those who chose to bring injury that is caused by the environment
around them to still recover but not as much as they would have if damages were
to be awarded by a jury; due to the fact that juries can be unpredictable in
their rewarding of damages. The American
civil litigation system would also be kept in place for cases that warrant a
trial, cases where A has injured B and rather than B seeking vengeance, B is
able to sue A in order to receive compensation.
By leaving the American system in place there is a hope that others will
be deterred from committing the same kind of injury as A. The mix between the two systems would most
likely not be successful because those injured by the environment would
complain that they are only receiving a set amount of money and do not have the
option to bring a lawsuit, with the hope of receiving more. The mix between the two would allow everyone
to be compensated and would prevent everyone who is harmed from seeking revenge
on their own.
After
reading this book I realized that Americans are not as litigation happy as they
are made out to be. The majority of
Americans lump their injuries for various reasons, they either blame themselves
or they do not know who was the cause of the injury. There are some lawsuits that are brought that
are frivolous and outrageous; these are lawsuits that are seen on the news that
lead other countries, as well as Americans, to be misguided as to the number of
lawsuits brought in the country each year.
David Engel’s The Myth of the Litigious Society showed that this is not
the case. In a perfect a society there
would be a mix between the American litigation system and the New Zealand
social compensation. Issues could arise
but ideally this system would still be preventing vigilantism.
No comments:
Post a Comment