FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS—ARE THEY REALLY A  PROBLEM?

by Katresa J. Riffel, Attorney at Law

During election years, many candidates bring up the “need” for tort reform ranting about all the frivolous lawsuits plaguing the court systems.  But are the courthouses really plagued with lawsuits which have no merit?  Having practiced law for over 20 years and discussing this issue with lawyers who have practiced significantly longer, a resounding NO is the answer to this question.  Additionally, the people most affected by tort reform are the ones who cannot afford for tort reform to be passed—the general population of the state.

The idea behind tort reform is to limit a person’s ability to recover money from those who cause an injury.  This, in many politician’s minds, will encourage  new business to locate in Oklahoma.  But unfortunately, the result leaves the innocent person who is injured without true compensation.   Let’s look at a few examples:

Example 1:  A 27 year old divorced father with two children is killed in a car accident.  He paid child support for his children along with being very active in his children’s lives.  He helped pay for extracurricular activities not to mention attending all their activities.  Under some of the proposed tort reform bills, the most that could be recovered is $300,00.00 (all bills propose a cap on damages) which could never compensate this family and particularly the children, for the loss of their father.  The driver of the vehicle causing the death was intoxicated and had a history of drinking and driving.  Limiting the recovery from this company seemingly rewards this company for allowing a person known to drink and drive to continue driving.  Is this the kind of business Oklahoma wants?

Example 2:  A 60+ lady receives third degree burns over her entire lap area due to a hot liquid being spilt on her lap.  The injuries resulted in multiple plastic surgeries on her legs and vagina.  The company producing the burning hot liquid previously received hundreds of complaints of the liquid being too hot and causing burning injuries and was told by an association who regularly deals in those liquids that the company was maintaining the liquid at a temperature well in excess of what the association recommended.  This lady went to trial and the verdict was for her medicals plus punitive damages (punishment-type damages) for not lowering the temperature.  The punitive damages amounted to one day’s profits of the liquid from all of the company’s sales of the liquid for one day.  This seems reasonable, however, this case is the one I hear referred to the most as a frivolous lawsuit.  The company was McDonald’s and the one day’s coffee sales was in excess of $7 Million dollars.  And the result is that McDonald’s no longer heat’s their coffee to a temperature that can cause third degree burns when spilled on a person.  This is one of the best examples of a company not changing their ways until a jury gave an award that made them stop and think.  Under tort reform, McDonald’s would only pay $300,000.00 and probably wouldn’t have changed their ways which is evidenced by them ignoring the hundreds of prior complaints. 

Tort reform isn’t what it seems, and the general public needs to be aware things aren’t always what they seem to be.  Frivolous lawsuits aren’t the problem—misinformation is. 

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.