Quite a while ago, Meryl Yourish wrote an article called the myth of the evil lawyers. In this she defends everybody’s favourite whipping boys (and girls), the lawyers from the accusation that it’s they who are responsible for the US being such a ligitious society. Which I think she is right in, but she does miss the point in where she shifts the blame to and in her explenation of why the US is so ligitious. I’ll quote the three paragraphs that form the heart of her argument.
But here’s the thing. Blaming lawyers for our litigious society is comparable to blaming drugs for their addiction. You show me one case of an attorney forcing a client to sue someone. The reason we have more lawsuits per square mile than any other nation is not because our legal system allows the unmonied individual to sue the wealthy corporations. It is because Americans now seem to have the idea that personal responsibility is for everyone else.
A crazy person pushes a man in front of an oncoming subway train in New York. He survives, he sues the city. They should have prevented it, he says. A crazy person jumps in front of a subway train, trying to commit suicide. He survives, and sues the city. They should have prevented him from being
able to jump, he says. The World Trade Center is attacked by terrorists. In order to prevent the plethora of lawsuits that could put several airlines out of business, the federal government sets up a fund–paid for by taxpayers–that families of the victims can draw from rather than sue. Otherwise, the families would have sued the airlines. They should have prevented it. Or the Port Authority, maybe,
who built the WTC. The towers obviously should have been built to withstand a terrorist attack. Sue! And here’s the kicker, which apparently nobody believes: Sometimes, shit happens. Sometimes, really bad stuff happens that results in horrible injuries and deaths. And often, it isn’t anybody’s fault. People
like the one in the subway who pushed that man under the train often exhibit no signs of insanity until that horrible moment. It wasn’t anyone’s fault. It was a horrible, horrible coincidence, and it’s terrible that he lost his legs, but the man has no right to sue the city for it. But you know he’ll win at least a six-figure settlement, because the new American Dream is no longer to work hard and become a millionaire: It’s to hit the lottery, literally or figuratively. The literal lottery is the one with the numbers. The figurative lottery: Get some kind of injury, hopefully not too incapacitating, and sue. Hell, you can even sue the airlines for not having your seatbelt on during turbulence when the captain specifically tells you all to put the belts back on. With any luck, it’ll only be a slight case of whiplash and you’ll get 50 grand for it.
I think Meryl is largely correct in her analysis, but misses the point as to why people bring on lawsuits. In my view, as much to do with not acknowledging personal responsibility or trying to get rich quick, as
with the everyday realities of the American system. That guy who lost his legs, how else is he going to get the money to pay for his hospital bills, his revalidation? How else will he make good the money he lost because he cannot do his job anymore?
The fact that there’s no consistent health and disability coverage in the US, that there’s only a very limited form of social security, that there’s little or no help available for people who do not have the resources (anymore) to take care of themselves, encourages people to sue somebody, anybody, who could even remotely be made to be responsible for their plight. In that light, it makes sense to go after the city rather than the person who pushed you off the platform, as the city actually has the money. If his case is really that flimsy, it will still be thrown out of court.
Nor do I think that the government offering extra assistance to the victims of a disaster is all that extraordinary. It is indeed one of the core tasks of government to help those in need and something that should be done as a matter of course.
This does not mean Meryl is totally wrong or even largely wrong though. As always, things are not that
simple. Partially the US is more ligitious because people expect somebody to pay for their misfortune, no matter how ridicilous their case (an offshoot from that whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing perhaps?), partially it is because people have no choice
and partially it’s also because there are quite a few lawyers who do indeed prey on such people, fueling their hopes of getting rich quick. Certainly the advertisements certain law firms put out here in the UK do so, I cannot imagine it’s any different in the US.
I also talked this through with S—, who is in fact a lawyer (but doesn’t play one on tv) and she has
a somewhat different perspective on this issue:
The US has a rights based constititution and caselaw has been made almost on the hoof in a little over
200 years. Whereas law has accreted in European countries over much much longer and is therefore more tightly circumscribed: there are holes a mile wide in US caselaw. Put the two things together and you get litigiousness.