exposé Camille Manon et Marie

FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
CAMILLE
MANON
MARIE
Introduction
Definition: According to the law, the term of “frivolous litigation” refers to a suit that has no legal ground, meaning that the arguments and justifications are not based on any law or legal duty. There are many frivolous cases in the US. Just google this expression and you will find many of strange stories...you may even think that it's a joke but some of them really came before Court, and the plaintiffs sometime won unbelievable amounts of money. How is it possible? Why are they so numerous in the US while we don't have such crazy suits in France? This difference is a direct consequence of the difference in the judicial structure of these both countries but also in the mentality of the population. In a first part, we will develop some cases that we thought were interesting. We decided to give you some examples in the main areas in which they occur (I) and to develop 2 particular cases. The second part is more theoretical and explains the causes and consequences of these frivolous lawsuits (II).
I. Examples of frivolous lawsuits
There are many motions brought up by these lawsuits, in different areas such as:
- Services
Catering:
 MacDonald’s coffee is too hot - Liebeck v. MacDonald’s Restaurants On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a coffee at the McDrive. She was in the passenger seat next to her grandson. He stopped so she could put some cream and some sugar in her coffee. She put the coffee between her legs to hold it and spilled it on her lap. This burned her. She was taken to the hospital where they told her she had third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and other burns over sixteen percent of her skin. She remained in the hospital for eight days and lost a lot of weight (she weighed 38 kilos at the end). She had to go under skin grafting and to go through 2 years of medical treatment.
Liebeck was only asking for the reimbursement of her past and future medical expenses which constituted of total amount of 20,000 dollars but McDonalds didn’t agree to pay more than 800 dollars. Liebeck then decided to hire an attorney and to file the case; suing McDonalds for "gross negligence" by selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". During the trial they discovered that McDonald’s required each fast food to serve the coffee between 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, it causes a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. They also discovered that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee. The jury said Liebeck was 20% responsible for her injuries and McDonalds 80% responsible on August 18, 1994. Liebeck got 200,000 dollars in compensatory damages, which was reduced to 160,000 dollars. They also awarded her 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages. They penalized McDonald’s for one or two days’ worth of coffee revenue. The judge then reduced punitive damages to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount which is supposed to be less than 600,000 dollars. We should highlight that this case was highly distorted in order to make it more frivolous than it really is. In fact people usually tend to think that Liebeck was actually driving the car, that she won millions and also that the burns were not really important. Media had a huge impact on this case. It is Susan Saladoff who pointed out this fact in her documentary « Hot Coffee ». However we can’t talk about frivolous lawsuits without mentioning this case since it is often used and should we say, misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit. The Stella Awards which reward the most frivolous lawsuits were named after Stella Liebeck.
 Knife backed into a sandwich - J. Agnesini v. Subway John Agnesini found a knife baked into the bread of his 12-inch cold-cut sub. “After taking a few bites I could tell something didn't taste right. Then I felt something hard on the bottom of the bread. I turned it over and could see the knife baked inside. It's shocking. You see this metal knife. I mean, it's one thing seeing a hair or something. If I didn't look at it, could you imagine what would happen? I could've slashed the side of my mouth. ». He did not have any injuries but he claims he had food poisoning from the plastic handle of the knife which was “filthy”. He asked for 1 million dollars.
Other services:
 Pants Lawsuit- Pearson v. Chung
The Chungs came from Korea to the US in May 1992 to get a better education for their children and to live the American dream. After a few years the Chungs opened a small dry cleaning store called Happy Cleaners in 1997. In 2000, they were able to open another larger store: Custom
Cleaners.
One day, Mr. Pearson, a judge, brought his pants to put in for cleaning and to make them a bit larger. The Chungs told him to come back on May 5, 2005.
The Chungs offered the altered pants to Mr. Pearson a few days after May 5, 2005 because the pants went by mistake to another store. Mr. Pearson refused to take the pants. He said they lost his pants even though the pants looked like his and the tag number on the pants matched his receipt.
Judge Pearson asked for compensation. The Chungs offered him $150. But Pearson demanded an amount of over $1,000 (what he claimed to be the price of the pants), which the Chungs refused.
As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court against the Chungs. The judge decided to bring it to trial on the basis of two of Pearson's claims:
- The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants.
- The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading.
Pearson demanded $65,462,500. He said he deserves millions for « mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort » caused by the loss of his pants. Besides, he was representing himself in this case and he spent on the case hundreds of hours.
Just prior to trial, Mr. Pearson reduced his claim to over $54,000,000. Among his requests were $500,000 in attorney's fees, $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress", and $15,000, which he claimed would be the cost to rent a car every weekend to drive to another dry cleaning service.
On June 12, 2007, the trial began. Pearson started crying during an explanation about his frustration after losing his pants and they had to stop the audience for a while.
The Chungs presented three settlement offers in the amounts of $3000, $4600, and $12000: Pearson refused all of them. Judge Kravitz stated that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith ». Pearson admitted later that, at the start of the court case, he had only $1000–2000 in the bank due to his divorce and was unemployed. He was going through a very messy divorce.
On June 25, 2007, the trial ended with Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew.
The Chungs had to close Custom Cleaners in September 2007. They now operate only one small cleaning store called Happy Cleaners in Washington, DC.
 Cleanthi Peters v. Universal Studios
This woman sued Universal Studios because their “Halloween Horror Nights” haunted house was too scary causing her emotional distress. An employee scared them with a chainsaw even when they fell on the ground after they slipped. She said he inflicted them
“extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.” They asked 15,000 dollars in damages.
- Property:
Batman city suing C. Nolan and Warner Bros - Batman city v. C. Nolan and Warner Bros Huseyin Kalkan mayor of a southeastern Turkey city sued Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. In fact this city is called Batman. He asked for royalties from the movie The Dark Knight! He says that the producers used the city’s name without his permission.
Jack Ass name -Jackass v. Jack Ass
Bob Craft changed his name to Jack Ass in 1997 after his brother died in a driving accident. He wanted to raise awareness for drunk driving. Years later he sued MTV because he thought the show plagiarized his name. He asked for 10 million dollars.
- Sex:
Mother v. School
A mother actually sued the school after her daughter was caught having oral sex in the school bus. Stephen Craig v. NY Hot Lap Dance club
This married man sued the strip club after a stripper’s shoe hit his eye causing him injuries.
- Religion:
Utah state prison v. Robert Paul Rice
This man sued the Utah prison because they didn’t let him practice his religion of “Druidic Vampire” because it didn’t allow him to drink blood and the conjugal visits of a “vampress”. This case reached the Utah State Court of Appeals which agreed with a lower court's ruling that the appeal "raises numerous questions that are so insubstantial as not to merit further consideration."
Holy Roller v. Magicians
A man sued two magicians asking for 10% of their income for life because he thought they were using God’s power. The thing is that he thought he was God and since they were stealing his powers he thought he deserved compensation.
II. Causes and consequences of frivolous litigation
A) Why are there so many frivolous lawsuits in the US?
- The filter
Definition of a lawsuit:
A lawsuit is a case or controversy authorized by law, to be decided in a court of justice, brought by one person or entity against another person or entity for the purpose of enforcing a right or redressing a grievance.
The most important part of this definition is that a lawsuit is authorized by the law.
When someone (the plaintiff) decides to sue another person (called the defendant) in the US, he first has to fill in a document which will be given to the competent court. In this document, the plaintiff describes the situation in which the litigation was brought up, the disagreement which is at the very origin of the process and develops the reasons why he has the intention to sue the defendant. He obviously has to justify his claims with legal grounds (a law or a legal duty). He finally has to list the damages and pain he has suffered & gone through, and what he is asking for in compensation.
The court reads out this document and then decides to give or not the authorization for the case to be brought before the courts. The court's decision is based on the interest of the case : If a similar case has already been judged useless or seems totally crazy / deprived of a solid ground, then it will be rejected and is to be considered as a frivolous lawsuit according to the legal definition (as we have seen before). If the judges think there is any legal interest in it and that its outcome might be interesting for the improvement of the law, they give their authorization for the case to go before the courts. Indeed, a suit might not have a legal ground but the judges might take the advantage of a case to underline the lack of a legislation in a particular area (what is called in French a « vide juridique »)
However, in spite of this filter, we have seen that many cases that go before the judges are a bit far-fetched and are described by the population as « frivolous lawsuits ». So, we can wonder how do they even come be judged?
- This brings us to the limits of this filter.
The limits can be found in the American mentality. Americans are very proud of their liberties and attached to their fundamental rights → Sacralization of individualism and capitalism. If they
have the slightest chance to earn some money in a suit, you can be sure they'll take it. This is what makes this filter loopy and some dreadful cases end up before the courts.
The "lawsuit lottery"
America is also known as the land of lawyers. Did you know that 70% of the world's lawyers are in the US? The judicial system should be used for justice, not greed. Unfortunately, some lawyers specialized in personal injury play a game of “lawsuit lottery”, and when they win it is at the public’s expense. They use aggressive advertising tactics to scare, mislead, and recruit plaintiffs, many of whom lack any real injury. Despite recent reforms to cut down on lawsuit abuse, personal injury lawyers continue to look for legal loopholes they can exploit to file frivolous for their personal benefit. They target courts in certain areas of the country, known as “judicial hellholes”, where judges and juries more likely to give them big jackpots. This system of “jackpot justice” is out of control.
B) The consequences of frivolous lawsuits
1. Unfair consequences on people
First of all, frivolous lawsuits have disastrous consequences on the people implied in the case. Indeed, a frivolous lawsuit most of the time implies 4 direct effects. The first point is a characteristic of a frivolous case; the other ones can be found in any cases but seem even more unfair in a frivolous suit.
- Harassment like in the « pants case » – the Chung couple thought about leaving the country because a man sued them for pants. They thought about giving up everything just because of this lawsuit.
If a defendant is subject to a frivolous lawsuit, he can actually sue the plaintiff for the tort of « malicious prosecution » but he has to prove that the suit doesn’t have any merit (which can be subjective and hard to demonstrate) and also that the plaintiff was aware of the nature of his suit but maintained it anyway in a malicious intent. Some people are mean enough to sue people because they want to hassle and harass them. In the case of the Korean couple, they were so disgusted that they thought about leaving the country.
- Pecuniary loss due to necessary attorney's fees. Very difficult to defend oneself because of the complex procedure rules (delays, signatures, official documents....)
- Deprival of time from his business or profession (is also a pecuniary loss at some point)
- Moral injury (harm to social reputation)
Frivolous lawsuits also tend to question moral values. Doctors don't want to provide help because they are afraid this might turn against them if they fail. When personal injury lawyers attack the system, they attack the citizens. Indeed, as they tend to be sued for almost anything, doctors are afraid to practice medicine. Almost 60 percent of OBGYNs had made changes to their
practice because of the cost of insurance. They can never be sure of the results. This is why there is a shortage of some specialty doctors or surgeons. Health care costs rise as litigation costs are passed on to patients, which causes a limitation in the access to medical care. These costs also prevent hospitals to invest in new technologies.
Consumers are the ones getting fleeced because abusive lawsuits harm the economy (by unuseful costs in a period of crisis) and job creation; threaten the access to affordable, quality health care.
2. Effects on the judiciary system and comparison with France
In the US: clogged, disrupted and delayed judiciary system. Unuseful costs in a period of crisis.
If there were more possibilities to make negotiations like in France, there wouldn’t be that much frivolous litigation. Indeed, unlike litigation, which requires a jury or a judge, mediation allows for the parties to talk things out and attempt resolving the issues without court intervention. The negotiation process already exists in the US: it is called an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is increasingly becoming a prevalent option but the lawsuit remains the favorite and most common way to resolve a legal dispute for the Americans.
Another difference is that in France, the filter is more severe because there are not as many judges and lawyers as in the US. Our system is not well adapted to what we call in French « the judiciarisation »
Judiciarisation : no exact equivalent but it means that the number of lawsuits and litigation is increasing, and people are wishing to sue anybody for anything, as soon as they have a problem. They tend to forget that is actually possible to resolve a dispute without going before the courts and thus spending time and losing money.
France can’t afford it. Yet: some authors and politicians denounce that France is on its way to such a mentality.
However, for now; there are no such cases in France. The delays are already long enough to get before the courts: it's better to avoid a blocking/obstruction of the judiciary system.
Conclusion Tort Reform: some lobbies campaign for a limitation of the damages that can be awarded. This movement is supported by the ATRA (American Tort Reform Association). It is true that on the one hand, this reform would put an end to all these unfair amount of damages awarded, but, on the other hand, it only moves the problem to another level. If some damages are not enough, the plaintiffs will ask this money to other organisms such as Medicaid: and this money is paid by the community (taxes).
For example, in the Gourley's case. A baby was born disabled because of a lack of medical assistance. The family should have got 5 million dollars in order to pay off the medical care for the rest of his life.
Because of the limitation, they only got 1.25 million dollar, which was not enough; they had to ask help to the Medicaid association.
To conclude, we can say that frivolous lawsuits are a real scourge in the judicial system. Because
of the willingness to earn always more money, lawyers are pushing plaintiffs to sue people for anything and this has disastrous consequences on both people, their moral values and the system. The process of "lawsuit jackpot" is almost impossible to stop without causing another problem (tort reform).