By The Law Fish
After
reading Engel’s Myth of the Litigious Society, I am quick to say I am not
surprised by any of the information or statistics given within his text. I
think it is apparent that the trend throughout this book is to bring forward
the fear that lies among Americans regarding our litigation system. But the
real question to ask is whether this fear, the one that causes
“lumping,” is something that is applicable to all aspects of life as an
American.
As I
reflect upon what I’ve taken from this text, I find myself learning and relating
to much of what I learned in undergraduate study, specifically about
stigmas in our culture and fear around such “hard-to-talk-about” topics. The
important aspect of a tort that make it so hard to talk about is what this book
focuses on: the injury. The view on injuries in America is so broad because of the
vast amount of cultures within our “melting pot.” On page 93, Engel begins his
analysis about cosmologies of cause and effect, emphasizing on how our
religious, philosophical, scientific, and other perspectives give influence on
why bad things happen to us. In better words, this cosmology of cause and
effect gives us a reason to blame ourselves or natural conditions for the
“unfortunate” situations that happen throughout life. The way I look at it, and
the way the book explains, these are not unfortunate situations; rather they
are situations that could have been prevented before or corrected had we
not pushed them down and ignored their true meaning.
After
reading through and understanding the different aspects that come together to make
sense of the American way of “lumping,” my view that I previously had on the
civil dispute resolution system in the United States has begun to fade away.
Before, my view of the system was that it is difficult. Needless to say, I
don’t think that view of mine has completely vanished, as I have learned
through my first year of law school that the legal system is meant to be
difficult for the average person to understand. After all, we wouldn’t have
jobs post-grad if that weren’t the case! But with that being said, I think much
of what we think makes the legal system difficult is mistaken for us as a
society actually being the ones who are difficult.
Over the
years, individuals around our country have pushed for change, and thankfully
have succeeded. But we can’t ignore the fact that we are a society who can
still be stuck in its ways. I know that as a young, striving professional in a
society that seems to develop more quickly by the day, self-sufficient
individualism (as mentioned on page 95) is something that is extremely
important to me. My father is the same way, as a first generation American,
feeling the need to make the best life that he possibly can for himself, and
again my grandfather was that way as an immigrant, feeling obligated to make
his life better than what it was before. It is something that has been ingrained
in and passed down to us from generation to generation. I am not saying that
being a self-sufficient individual is a bad thing, because it’s most definitely
not. I do think though that it has created a huge barrier for us to hurdle. Asking the legal system for help or admitting that you were injured would
take that self-sufficient individualism away.
Why even bother sticking our foot into that door, just to have
everything we have striven for over the years be washed down the drain?
That
brings us to the million-dollar question: what would my tort reform look like
now that my knowledge of our litigation system is somewhat advanced? I would
begin with us as a society. Based on my explanation above, I don’t really
believe there can be a feasible way to approach such a topic without starting
from the root of the issue. I believe that as much as we are continuing to move
in the right direction (for the most part) as a society, it will be difficult
to peel back the ideologies that we have created which prevent us from seeking
help. Is my approach of attacking the public before attacking our litigation
system the most feasible? Doubtful. But as one fish among many other’s swimming
in this broad, ocean of law, I have no reason to distrust our abilities as a
whole to combine our different approaches in order to make an indestructible
tort reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment