Thanks to Mel
Moviegoers are enjoying this summer's blockbuster with Mel Gibson as a leader of patriots risking all, even their lives, to gain the freedoms Americans enjoy today. Some of the liberties that were secured during that fight for independence are now so taken for granted that we fail to remember how hard fought the battle that secured them.
But when an election involves issues determining our rights to sue for one thing or another, the two sides usually square off on the same "company line." Those who oppose law suits might portray plaintiffs' lawyers as greedy or point out that more law suits will eventually mean higher costs for insurance and other services or goods. On the other hand, the vocal plaintiffs' lawyers group, Consumer Attorneys of California, will tell you that the rights which America's forefathers fought so hard for are being eroded, slowly but surely, and that the threats of higher costs to us are gross exaggerations. They also point out that even if we have to pay more for safer cars or easier to collect insurance, that is a small price to pay.
Are both sides right? Probably. Should we as individuals be careful to not give up control of our judicial freedoms? Most definitely!
I've written before that there are fewer lawsuits per capita now than in the time of Abraham Lincoln. If that's true, why do we keep hearing about a litigation explosion?
The truth is, we're being sold a bill of goods filled with misinformation.
Ask anyone this question "What do you think of your right to file a law suit in a court of law?" Many will react as if the question had been "How would you like to be sued?" We might all be so afraid of being sued and having our assets taken away that we are willing to give up everyone's right sue just to make sure we ourselves don't get sued someday.
That question reminds me of the old adage, "The better informed you are, the better decisions you will make." Understand how lawsuits work and you will better appreciate your rights to bring a suit. Remember, for example, that a lawsuit is decided by 12 of your peers. Not by the person who filed the suit. Not some bureaucrat or some faceless corporation. The 12 jurors often closely identify with the people they hear and see in the courtroom. They imagine themselves in the shoes of the one bringing the suit and the one being sued. Ask a judge if American juries are capable of rendering fair decisions the vast majority of the time. The answer will be yes. The system works.
Bogus claims and inflated claims are rejected by juries every week in every court in the State of California. In all cases that are heard, about half of the verdicts are for the defendant, with the plaintiff getting nothing. In many decisions for the plaintiff, juries award only very modest amounts. Often the verdict is less than the amount the defendant offered in settlement prior to the trial. This can mean that the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's expenses - and sometimes these costs are more than the award so the plaintiff has to come out of pocket!
The bottom line is this: In the American judicial system, both the individuals bringing lawsuits (the plaintiffs) and the ones being sued (defendants) have good reasons to say "I have faith in the (jury) system and I am sure that justice will be done when the truth comes out."
This has certainly been my experience. In fact, I think our judicial system works very well. Those who seek to coerce us into changing it in order to avoid supposed increased costs should be viewed with suspicion. Aren't most of these people the most vocal and most often heard people who are the mouthpieces for large corporations? Answer: yes. Why? Because if corporations cut corners without being held accountable, profits will increase dramatically. At who's expense? Ours!
Do you agree? Call, write, fax or e-mail me with your thoughts. I'll share readers' comments in a future issue of this newsletter. Make this space your forum too.
Back to Newsletter
© 2000 Nelson C. Barry III
|
|
