ELI5: Suing culture in the United States.
I see it multiple times per day. (For example: I tripped over a threshold in my rental property, can I sue my landlord for everything he owns?)
Posted Sep 21, 2018, 5:24 PM UTC
825
The United States has an outlier legal system.
Besides being adversarial instead of inquisitorial we achieve societal cost spreading and regulation through personal cases, rather than government oversight.
Think of it this way:
We need a system of recourse for when someone trips at their rental.
Someone needs to determine if the landlord was negligent and causes you injury, and someone needs to pay for your medical bills.
One way to do that would be very thorough government regulation. There could be a "Bureau of Trips and Falls" and you could go there to state your case. Maybe there would be some kind of investigation performed by officials. They'd come up with a result, and lets say they think you deserve compensation, your medical expenses would be payed from their coffers, most likely funded by your taxes.
Under this system our two goals are met: cost spreading (your medical bills are paid by taxes) and redress (the Bureau addresses your concerns).
We don't like that over here at a very fundamental philosophical level.
The US has always promoted individualism and small government. Our legal system reflects that.
Instead of a Bureau of Trips and Falls, we have a decentralized system of regulation managed through private suits. So if you trip an fall, you, an individual, sue your landlord, an individual. Lawyers and judges fight it out in a court battle, and a decision is reached. Costs will be paid by insurance.
Liability to law suits encourages people to follow the rules, and this decentralized system of regulation ultimately evolves with each case and suit.
So once again our two goals are met, but in totally different ways:
Costs were spread (insurance) and you get redress (court system).
Both systems effectively do the exact same thing.
One of the biggest misconceptions in the US is that the lawsuit culture is bad thing. It's not. It's a necessary part for our system as a whole.
On a side note, the US has moved more and more to a hybrid system over the decades. We now have much more of an administrative system than we used to.
14
sue your landlord, an individual. [...] Costs will be paid by insurance.
Costs were spread (insurance)...
Technically isn't the cost being paid by the defendant himself? Whether he has (and invokes) insurance is an internal implementation detail.
2
Most states require people who are frequently subject to liability to carry insurance for exactly this reason.
Motorists, landlords, doctors, lawyers, etc.
1
Thank you! Definitely sounds a lot different than here in Canada. Makes sense now :)
1
Here if you fall down, you apologize for hitting the floor and go get free healthcare.
5
[deleted]
1
No problem. Its interesting stuff. The misperception that the US is lousy with frivolous law suits comes from the fact that our regulation system (the courts) are public.
If we had a bureau of trips and falls can you imagine how many frivolous complaints there would be?
It's just that since we regulate through public suit, everyone knows about every dumb little complaint.
And news fucking loves to push the frivolous lawsuit story because it is appealing.
If you think of the court as just a societal complaint board, itll kinda realign your perception.
3
Just to add to the above answer, the United States is actually not the most litigious country in the world. It only appears that way because of the vast amount of media coming from the US. Germany is by far the most litigious country in the world, but German film and television isn't nearly as ubiquitous. Seeing as you live in Canada, you're likely to get a fair bit of news coming from the US as well that mentions various lawsuits. This makes it appear as though everyone is constantly everyone else, but it's not really like that.
1
Does any country have a bureau of trips and falls? You are giving a made up alternative option, when all other western countries get along fine without frivolous lawsuits or government trip/fall departments
1
Health and Safety Executive in the UK?
2
Health and Safety Executive in the UK?
US Department of Labor fulfills the OHSA function in the US.
2
In all honesty, I’m sure Canada does.. We have a goddamned bureau for EVERYTHING. The amount of our tax dollars that go towards unecessary civil servants is beyond gross.
1
Yeah, that's kinda the general point. More government, less suing; less government more suing.
But I think that guy just enjoys poking holes in my silly example.
3
Your examples are what explained the situation to me. I thank you again.
3
A part of this that isn't quite as well-known is that there was a deliberate effort on the part of corporations to sell this image, when the US congress was discussing tort reform; basically the poster child of this that you may have heard of was the "McDonald's Coffee Lady" case, where the headline goes that a woman sued McDonalds for 3 million dollars for spilling coffee on her lap.
That headline is the result of a multi-million dollar PR campaign by McDonalds; the actual facts of that case include the following bullet-points:
-
The woman in question received third degree burns over her genitals and thighs, requiring skin grafts and a few months of time in the hospital. I'm not googling this because I'm at work, but I read in one medical report that the term "burn fused labia" and that stuck in my brain as indicating that maybe the coffee was actually just too goddamn hot.
-
The initial suit was for her medical costs and the lost income from her daughter, about $20,000.
-
McDonald's counter-offered an absurdly low figure, like $800.
-
During the trial, it was discovered that it was corporate policy for McDonalds to serve coffee at a temperature that was far higher than the industry standard, between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit (~82-88 Celsius) when the industry standard was much lower (~165 farenheit, if memory serves, can't find that right now).
-
It was also discovered that McDonalds had known that this temperature could cause 3rd degree burns in 5-7 seconds, and over the past decade had settled over 700 other claims of burns from their coffee.
-
The case sought total damages of $200,000; the jury awarded further punitive damages after the case of "about a day's worth of coffee sales" of 2.7 million.
-
One of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”
-
The judge immediately decided that this verdict was too much, and awarded $600,000 or thereabouts
-
McDonald's appealed the verdict, and eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum that is confirmed to be under $500,000.
And before the case was done, the PR attack had begun; they fed stories slanted to their favor to news outlets who reported on an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits being brought by people who, they made out, had done stupid things and now wanted to be made rich.
5
I remember this lawsuit vividly. The poor woman was made out to be a complete idiot while McD’s turned itself into the victim.
3
Exactly; I get that this is probably not exactly what you're asking about, but it's such a widespread misconception (which makes sense, given the PR campaign) that I take the chance as often as I can to set that record straight :)
Overall, remember that in the US, the news is a (group of) business(es), and that sensationalist headlines that spark outrage sell better than an actual recitation of the facts. Real life continues to be boring, and so more and more the news deals in exaggerations, half-truths, and sometimes outright lies, to generate more revenue.
So I'd wager that there are kernels of truth to some of the lawsuits that are deemed frivolous (as in, the suit was actually filed), but I don't trust the news to report on the facts of the case with any accuracy. Chances are that if someone got rich from slipping on the sidewalk, there was someone responsible for keeping that sidewalk clear and they were particularly negligent in their duties.
Other ones (like the people in LegalAdvice who ask if they can sue for their landlord's house if the landlord forgot to change a lightbulb before they moved in) just buy into the hype that there's free money to be made from suing people over nothing.
3
The woman placed the hot coffee between her thighs. When the driver moved the car the elderly woman squeezed her thighs, the coffee went all over her thighs, just as one would expect. Ms. Liebeck was hurt because she spilled coffee on herself. It was her fault. McDonalds didn't dump it in her lap, she did it to herself.
The degree of injuries does not denote any more or less culpability for damages, that is a separate issue but so many scream "Look at the horrific burns!!!!". It's an emotional plea, not a plea based on good law.
Temperature of the coffee: Time to scald to 3rd degree burns at 155 f is 1 second. Even had the coffee been 165 (at the so called "safe" temperature) she still would have gotten 3rd degree burns. There is no safe temperature for hot coffee that anyone would want it served at. Minimum temperature to prevent bacteria growth (a lower limit set by health departments) is 140 f. Time to third degree burns at 140 f is 5 seconds. Search for "time to scald chart". Nobody serves coffee at 140 because it would be cold in a matter of seconds most of the year in the most of North America. Beyond 155 the time to scald is so short that when you dump one in your lap you will be burned unless you have the reflexes of Spider Man. More so if you are elderly, they tend to be burned much more easily because of thinner skin and less subcutaneous fat, less ability to judge heat and slower reflexes. Ask any geriatric nurse. Of course when McDonalds brought this up they were called callous monsters. Facts didn't matter in the case.
McDonalds does not serve higher than the so called industry standard, Burger King, Starbucks and many other companies serve coffee (and tea) at the same temperature or so close to it that it doesn't matter. (again, see time to scald charts) The reality is there is no industry standard, there have been various court cases with widely varying temperatures. Search "industry standard coffee temperatures".
The following study suggest serving coffee and tea at 136 f in order to prevent burns. Such drinks would be tepid in a matter of seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454
Mcdonalds did not show a disregard for human safety, they served literally billions of coffees with only 700 settlements, the majority because McDonalds employees spilled the coffee on customers and so McDonalds was directly culpable in those cases. Restaurants all over North America serve coffees, teas, hot chocolates and soups at that temperature. One settlement per over twenty million sold. The jury complained McDonalds was only concerned with statistics. As if actual reality and facts don't matter, just emotions, which is what really decided the case.
The jury awarded a larger amount because McDonalds chose to fight the lawsuit rather than settle. This sets up the perverse situation where a company (or individual) is punished for believing they are in the right and taking the case to court. The entire point of having a civil court system is to determine such issues, juries punishing a defendant for using their legal right creates perverse incentives and extreme judgments in the legal system for imagined wrongs.
There is a reason why a ladder made from $5 worth of material is covered with warning labels and costs $200, it's because of frivolous lawsuits. The reality is some products have inherent dangers, like ladders, motor vehicles and coffee and when they are used thoughtlessly or carelessly they can cause injuries or even death.
FYI, it's widely recommended to set water heaters to 120 f because of the large number of elderly and children who are scalded with 135 f water.
The only way to prevent burns is to serve tepid coffee or iced coffee. This means hot coffee is inherently dangerous at any reasonable serving temperature. This means the woman should have known this (in her eighties and she didn't know hot liquids can burn?) and she caused her injuries when she spilled the coffee on herself. The jury should have found her culpable, but rational arguments, facts and evidence are sometimes ignored in jury cases, especially when lawyers push emotional buttons.
McDonalds still serves their coffee at the same temperature. But now the warning on the cup is larger, as per one of the juror's complaints.
All fixed.
1
I was sued for frivolous reasons by someone with deep pockets. I wound up spending a year's salary just arguing jurisdiction.
What I learned is that judges pretty much never put a stop to ridiculous shenanigans and almost never award costs to the prevailing party.
This creates a system that encourages excessive litigation and sets things up so that the results are often determined by who can drive the other party to bankruptcy first rather than by merit.
2
[removed]
1
It depends on what state you are in. For instance, in Wyoming it's hard to sue someone for negligence or anything else that is not governed by a contract. The bottom line in Wyoming is "how much did it cost you" I can slander you all day long, but unless you can prove it cost you money or some other thing of value, you can't collect. You can only recover actual damages. You don't get paid for hurt feelings or inconvenience. Because of that, not a lot of lawsuits in Wyoming over slander or libel. No large awards for "pain and suffering". Just your actual costs to make you whole.
In California you look at someone wrong and hurt their feelings and your getting sued for emotional harm, pain and suffering, punitive damages all kinds of things that put one way over "being whole".
So it just depends on where you live and what the laws are.
1
The reality of lawsuits in the US is very different from the lawsuit culture that we have. Due to bad reporting, a general misunderstanding of the legal system, and some politically motivated reform efforts, the average person really doesn't understand what happens in the system.
The first big misunderstanding is that being able to sue someone requires your case to be accurate or have some legal merit. It doesn't. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, because all it means is that you've filled out some paperwork and submitted it to the court of your choice. So if you see a headline like "Mike sues Jim for $10 million after falling in Jim's house," all that's happened is Mike has paid a lawyer to fill out paperwork for him and submit it to the court.
It doesn't mean that the lawyer thinks Mike will win, or that Mike deserves $10 million, or that he's been awarded that much money.
So the lawsuit goes before a judge, and assuming the paperwork is all filled out correctly, hears out both sides of the argument, which includes Mike detailing exactly why he's owed $10 million. This usually involves presenting all the ways he's been financially damaged by the fall, like hospital bills and how much work he's missed, etc. With a very small exception, emotional damage alone counts as nothing to the court. It also includes Mike having to explain exactly what the fall was Jim's fault. If he can't prove that, or if Jim can counter it, how much Mike was hurt in the fall is a moot point.
In the end, the judge rules on the lawsuit, awarding Mike some fraction of what he asked for, or the judge finds in favor of Jim, awarding no money, or Mike and Jim settle the case outside of court, bringing the dispute to an end based on whatever they agree on.
Lawsuit culture comes from a misunderstanding of this process, and people seeing every accident as a chance to get rich quick, not realizing that the majority fail to get anywhere.
In the end, the judge awards damages, basically the judge decides just how much of the things that are Mike did are Jim's fault, and how much actual damage was caused. Generally, you don't get awarded more than you sue for, so lawyers tend to sue for far more than the damages would actually be worth just so there's enough room for the judge to make a fair ruling.
Legal costs (like filing and lawyers' fees) totally count as damages, BTW, because if things had been settled without bringing the courts in to it, you wouldn't have had to pay for any of that- and the plantiff can be counter sued and held responsible for the other party's legal costs as well because if you sue and it turns out that you had valid basis for it, then the other guy has been damaged by your law suit.
I would note, also:
And lawyers try not to be involved with anything TOO outrageous, because a judge can go after the lawyers for bringing obvious nonsense (though it can take a LOT to reach any meaningful punishment- Jack Thompson had to make a LOT of frivolous lawsuits against video game publishers before he lost his license to practice law, for instance.)
All excellent points, thanks
Whoa whoa, are you European? American rule is well settled that legal costs are not damages.
It's ELI5. I'm Florida at least there are many types of cases in which the judgement can includes costs and attorneys fees. While these are not damages, they're close enough for an ELI5 explanation. At the end of the trial a person can win their damages and costs and fees if they have the right kind of case.