Wampum

Junk or a Treasure? Ask The Experts

Is it junk or a treasure? Everyone fan of the Antique Roadshow knows that the only way to find out is to ask the experts.

President Bush often rails against “junk law suits.” Many tort reformers argue that junk suits run up health care costs, drive good doctors out of practice, make small business less competitive, enrich only the lawyers, and clog the court system.

A frivolous suit is one brought for an improper purpose or which presents no legitimate issue of law or fact. A “junk lawsuit”, as I understand it, includes frivolous suits as well as suits that ask for ridiculous amounts in damages, suits brought in a forum that has no relationship to the injury, suits that include people or companies with only a tangential relationship to the harm, and suits over minor slights.

What follows is a quiz. I will describe a suit and you have to decide whether or not it is a “junk lawsuit.” Of course, the only real way to know if it is junk or a treasure is to ask the experts. More on that later. Ready? Here goes.

Question 1

A man provides a car for his teenage daughter to drive. Through no fault of her own, the daughter is involved in a minor fender bender. No one is hurt and the property damage is less than $2,500. The father could just turn the claim into his insurance company and be done with it. Instead, when he learns that the other driver was in a rental car and that the rental company provided the car to a driver with a suspended license, the father sues the rental car company for the property damage.

Is it junk or a treasure?

Answer 1

I do not find that suit to be frivolous. It was brought for the proper purpose of vindicating a legal right and it presented legitimate issues of law or fact. It may, however be a "junk lawsuit" under the broader definition.

The stakes were quite small. The father could have turned the matter over to his insurance company and the property loss would have been paid without litigation. The only loss would have been a potential premium increase as a result of making a claim under the policy. Thus, it could be considered suing over a minor slight.

In addition, suing the rental car company instead of the negligent driver could be considered trying to impose liability on a deep pocket with only a tangential relationship to the harm. The GOP wants to eliminate joint and several liability. Under that proposal, the father could recover from the rental car company only the portion of the damage caused by its negligence and not for the portion of the damage caused by the driver of the rental car.

So, was it fair to ask the rental car company to pay all of the damages when the driver of the rental car also contributed to the accident? I think we should ask President Bush. He should know. He was the plaintiff who sued Enterprise Rent a Car in 1999 when his daughter, Jenna, was involved in the fender bender. After filing suit in Austin, Texas, Bush settled with Enterprise for around $2000.

Question 2

The wife of an elected official goes to a chiropractor to have her back manipulated. She claims that the chiropractor committed malpractice and injured her back. Her husband testifies that she has to treat her back gingerly and notes that it is harder for her to make campaign appearances on his behalf.

The wife sues the chiropractor for $500,000 in damages to compensate her for permanent pain in her back and permanent numbness in one leg.

Is it junk or a treasure?

Answer 2

That case seems far from frivolous. If the chiropractor negligently caused damage to the wife’s back, I see no reason why she should not be compensated for that injury.

In addition, I am in no position to judge whether or not the injury was sufficiently severe to warrant a claim for $500,000. The husband of the plaintiff, though, believes that no amount of pain, no matter how intense or how long lasting, warrants a claim for more than $250,000.

The plaintiff was the wife of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum co-sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act. That bill would have limited non-economic damages to $250,000, exactly one half of what Senator Santorum’s wife sought from the chiropractor for her back pain.

On the Senate floor, Senator Santorum said:

We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole.

While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do.''

The jury returned a verdict on behalf of Mrs. Santorum in the amount of $350,000. A judge later reduced that verdict in half, to $175,000. Was she one of the lottery winners of whom Senator Santorum spoke?

Question 3

A California actor portrayed a popular character in a series of movies. An Ohio car dealership took out a weeks worth of full-page ads in an Akron, Ohio newspaper to promote a car sale. The full-page ads included a tiny, thumbnail picture of the actor in character. The car dealership had not received permission to use the actor’s image for commercial purposes.

The actor brought suit in a California court despite the fact that the Ohio dealership had no connection to California. The actor sought in excess of $37 million in damages.

Is it junk or a treasure?

Answer 3

I see nothing wrong with an actor using the court system to prevent unauthorized use of his image for commercial purposes. I also see nothing wrong with seeking damages for such an infringement.

Nonetheless, while not frivolous on the merits, the selection of a forum that has no relationship to the tort reeks of a “junk lawsuit” and the idea that the actor has been damaged in any amount approaching $37 million for a tiny photo run in a newspaper in Akron, Ohio is ridiculous on its face.

Perhaps though, before we deem the lawsuit junk, we should consult with Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He, of course, was the plaintiff in the suit.

How did you do on the quiz? Please do not take my answers too seriously. I am just a lawyer. To determine if the lamp I found in the attic is junk or a treasure, I need to ask the experts at the Antique Roadshow. Republican politicians are clearly the experts in “junk law suits” so perhaps we should consult them.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at January 23, 2005 11:25 AM | TrackBack