Why are people so litigious?

[Kim&Chris]

It boggles the mind.

When I was a kid, I can remember hearing about "suing" maybe only once or twice, for serious car accidents & such. Nowadays, people file suit for the most ridiculous nonsense. No wonder people hate lawyers.

We had a woman in one of our stores yesterday who is claiming her the rubber sole of her sneaker rubbed the carpeting, causing her to stumble but not fall. She claims this caused her neck to "jolt", and thus gave her whiplash. She's already informed me she's contacted an attorney. Mind you, she has not seen a doctor yet, but has already reached out to an attorney.

Wouldn't it be nice if lawyers got disbarred for handling this stuff, or heavily fined for accepting frivolous claims?

 

[C.Ann]

Well that's certainly a "stretch"..

I believe there are times when lawsuits are definitely appropriate, but it gives them all a bad name when people start suing over things like this - or their own stupidity..

 

[glitterkittyy]

It boggles the mind.

When I was a kid, I can remember hearing about "suing" maybe only once or twice, for serious car accidents & such. Nowadays, people file suit for the most ridiculous nonsense. No wonder people hate lawyers.

We had a woman in one of our stores yesterday who is claiming her the rubber sole of her sneaker rubbed the carpeting, causing her to stumble but not fall. She claims this caused her neck to "jolt", and thus gave her whiplash. She's already informed me she's contacted an attorney. Mind you, she has not seen a doctor yet, but has already reached out to an attorney.

Wouldn't it be nice if lawyers got disbarred for handling this stuff, or heavily fined for accepting frivolous claims?

Reading your post caused me eye strain. I'm suing. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

 

[Darsa]

My job is referring people to attorneys based on their situations/locations, and I not too long ago spoke with a woman who was at a bar and got completely plastered, went out on the dance floor and fell, breaking her arm. She wanted to sue the bar for serving her the drinks she ordered.

A while back I got this:

Him: I want to sue!

Me: You want to sue for what?

Him: Money!

I thought that pretty much summed it all up. People looking for easy money, or to blame others for their stupidity.

 

[mrsv98]

Reading your post caused me eye strain. I'm suing. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

You were mean to Kim&Chris causing me emotional distress....I am suing!

 

[ead79]

In my opinion, it has a lot to do with the fact that people love money. Obviously I'm not speaking about legitimate lawsuits, but in the case of frivolous ones, I think people are looking for a way to get rich quick. They see their situation as a way to get some money without having to work for it. Plus, I think too many folks feel like money will fix everything.

 

[Pakey]

You were mean to Kim&Chris causing me emotional distress....I am suing!

Your lmao smiley appears to be slapping me. I'm suing.

 

[Becky2005]

Because they can. People think suing = quick $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

My DH says we should have a system of where the loser has to pay the winner's court costs or something like that -- basically it's not a somewhat free ride to just sue whoever you want for anything you want. I don't know how that would work with legitimate claims but it would certainly cut down on the frivilous ones.

You would have to be completely convinced you are right and will take the chance of losing vs. who knows, I can TRY to sue and I might make a good living out of it.

 

[glitterkittyy]

Your lmao smiley appears to be slapping me. I'm suing.

Your use of online lingo cause my brain to hurt. I'm suing.

 

[monsterkitty]

Every day we hear from kids in class that they will be "suing" us because of a grade, being disciplined, or because we dare to give work. I ask them what are they going to sue me for, my cat who eats too much or my dog who eats shoes. Then I tell them they can't sue someone until they can spell the word.

 

[Wall-E1]

I don't know if this is a nationwide company or not, but here in Florida we have had new billboards and bench advertisements popping up all over. The website to their law firm is printed in large, bold letters - whocanisue.com. So sad. There are legitimate cases where this is necessary, but these "ambulance chasing" d-bags give all attorneys a bad name.

 

[Hoodie]

Because they can. People think suing = quick $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

My DH says we should have a system of where the loser has to pay the winner's court costs or something like that -- basically it's not a somewhat free ride to just sue whoever you want for anything you want. I don't know how that would work with legitimate claims but it would certainly cut down on the frivilous ones.

You would have to be completely convinced you are right and will take the chance of losing vs. who knows, I can TRY to sue and I might make a good living out of it.

Totally agree with that. Might cut down on some of the nonsense.

There's actually a couple of reasons for it. Money is part of it. We also have a society now where nothing is ever your fault. There is no personal responsibilty anymore. Responsibility now lies with whomever has the deepest pockets.

 

[Kim&Chris]

I don't know if this is a nationwide company or not, but here in Florida we have had new billboards and bench advertisements popping up all over. The website to their law firm is printed in large, bold letters - whocanisue.com. So sad. There are legitimate cases where this is necessary, but these "ambulance chasing" d-bags give all attorneys a bad name.

Ah, yes, I've seen their billboards!! Very classy.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Wouldn't it be nice if lawyers got disbarred for handling this stuff, or heavily fined for accepting frivolous claims?

Umm...no. No it wouldn't. One man's frivolous is another man's valid claim. Who are you or anyone else to make the decision as to what that is? You really want to make it a debarring offense for a lawyer to actively argue in favor of his client? That's a darn good way to guarantee that no one without a rock solid defense/complaint would ever get represented.

 

[Kim&Chris]

Umm...no. No it wouldn't. One man's frivolous is another man's valid claim. Who are you or anyone else to make the decision as to what that is? You really want to make it a debarring offense for a lawyer to actively argue in favor of his client? That's a darn good way to guarantee that no one without a rock solid defense/complaint would ever get represented.

There's a clear and obvious difference between frivolous and valid.

 

[disneyslp]

This reminds me of the time I fell at Disney. The ramp was slippery, it was wet, I fell. I did hurt my arm wasnt broken hurt for a week or so. Disney was very nice through the whole thing. That being said I am sure I could've gotten some money (or a trip) but I didn't miss work and I wasn't hurt terribly bad. When I told the Disney rep that I had no intentions of suing that they couldn't control the weather and my clumsiness he couldn't believe it. They did take care of the one Dr. bill I had though.

 

[Sanchez]

There's a clear and obvious difference between frivolous and valid.

There are certain fraudulent cases, but in most situations the difference between frivolous and valid is difficult and often depends on point of view.

Most states, if not all, have varying levels of sanctions for lawyers who pursue false or frivolous claims.

Lawyers do not make the ultimate determination of fact. Clients can and do lie and sometimes a lawyer has no way of determining that. With that said, a lawyer needs to use good judgment in deciding whether to prosecute a case. Unfortunately, much of that judgment has been replaced by the desire to remain competitive in a world with too many lawyers. Many will take on any matter, sometimes knowing that there will be no financial reward, just to build up a client base.

 

[Wall-E1]

I once had an incident at a Dillards department store. I honestly don't know how this happened, but I was walking through the store, just browsing around. In department stores, they have displays that are shaped like an upside down, capital T. They slide cardboard advertisements into the slots on top. Well, I walked straight into one of these displays head on, eyes fully open. Again, I don't know how I managed such a feat. As the display and I began our rapid, face first descent to the hard floor below, I instinctively grabbed on to the display harder for support. Of course, this was useless, as we were both traveling in the same direction and at the same speed. Upon hitting the floor, all of my knuckles were squashed between the floor and the metal display bar. Both my knees hit hard and I tweaked my shoulder. Employees rushed over to see me writhing in pain on the floor, while at the same time laughing hysterically at my own stupidity, tears flowing freely. They wanted to help and to have me sit and rest. I was too embarrassed and instead told them that I was fine. So with my dignity intact, I tearfully limped out of the store crying. In hindsight, I suppose I could of sued them for my own stupidity and probably could have gotten a settlement. I just don't have it in me to sink to that low of a level.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

There's a clear and obvious difference between frivolous and valid.

Every claim is frivolous to the people on the other side.

Think back (waaaay back, dating myself here) to the "woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself". Her lawsuit became the symbol of the tort reform movement. People protested all over the country, holding up signs saying "She Spilled It On Herself!" Everyone thinks that lawsuit was frivolous.

Well, not everyone. You know the only people who don't think it was frivolous? Lawyers. And you know why? Because we all learn about it in torts class. We all hear the facts the media didn't bother to tell people. We all know that McDonalds was not only in the wrong, but massively so, and deserving of punitive damages.

Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we have judges to bring these things before to make determinations as to whether they are frivolous or not (and when they do, yes, the side bringing the frivolous claim usually is responsible for the costs of the other side). That's why those judges can be appealed, because decisions like this shouldn't be left to the determination of just one person.

REGARDLESS, you want to have a lawyer disbarred for representing someone to the fullest extent of their abilities? You want them to be not only fired, but prevented from ever practicing in their home jurisdiction again, because of doing their job as well as they possibly can? Disbarring someone is a huge punishment, and it just doesn't fit the non-crime you're describing.

 

[Kim&Chris]

There are certain fraudulent cases, but in most situations the difference between frivolous and valid is difficult and often depends on point of view.

Most states, if not all, have varying levels of sanctions for lawyers who pursue false or frivolous claims.

Lawyers do not make the ultimate determination of fact. Clients can and do lie and sometimes a lawyer has no way of determining that. With that said, a lawyer needs to use good judgment in deciding whether to prosecute a case. Unfortunately, much of that judgment has been replaced by the desire to remain competitive in a world with too many lawyers. Many will take on any matter, sometimes knowing that there will be no financial reward, just to build up a client base.

That's a good point. Countless times I've been on the phone with plaintiff's attorneys and I'll inform them "this was captured on tape, and your client is not telling you the truth". And then I miraculously never hear back from them.