Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
The trial lawyers' "justice" myth
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



The Association of Trial Lawyers of America recently changed its name to the American Association for Justice. It may be a smart PR move, because everyone likes the word "justice," and apparently the name "trial lawyers" has acquired a negative tinge. It's good that it has, because although trial lawyers say they "protect the little guy," that's a myth. In truth, for every little guy they help, they hurt thousands.

When those big medical malpractice awards hit the headlines, it sounds like the little guy was helped. "$1 million awarded to victim of medical device!" But the headline leaves out a great deal. First, the suit cost everyone involved -- and that includes you -- much more than $1million. In addition to the million-dollar settlement, there were the court costs and legal fees charged by the defense lawyers -- many defense lawyers, considering the plaintiff probably sued not just the maker of the medical equipment, but the surgeon, an internist, some nurses, the hospital, and God knows how many others. Lawsuits routinely name as many as a dozen people, because to not include someone who is later revealed to be at fault may expose the lawyer to a charge of legal malpractice.

For the lawyers and people like me, a lawsuit is just another part of our work, but for most people, it's a life-wrecking experience. Nurses are terrified. Doctors can't sleep. Their hard-earned reputations are trashed by newspapers quoting plaintiffs' lawyers, who paint deceitful pictures of the doctors' incompetence and negligence. The doctors are forced to hire defense lawyers who eat up their time, energy and entire life savings. Patients suffer while their physicians spend several hours a week with attorneys, preparing for and giving depositions. The suit drags on for years.

Soon doctors begin practicing hyper-defensive medicine, ordering expensive and largely unnecessary tests to avoid lawsuits. Some of the tests are painful for the patients. Today, 51 percent of doctors recommend invasive procedures like biopsies more often than they believe are medically necessary.

Doctors become more secretive, talk less openly with patients and become averse to acknowledging any mistake. Insurance premiums rise, and both doctors and hospitals pass the cost on to patients. Newly fearful, the medical device manufacturer decides to stick to proven technologies, dropping its plan to pursue a new line of tools that would make surgery less painful and less risky. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Lawyers, of course, get a big percentage of any award, but to cover what the lawyers take, the price tags of all consumer goods are a little higher. Life-saving products are especially penalized by the "lawyer tax." A manufacturer who produces pacemakers says lawsuits add thousands of dollars to the cost of every pacemaker. Lawsuits punish hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people.

Critics of lawsuit abuse tend to focus only on the cost of litigation. The cost is nasty. But the higher cost is just the start of the nasty side effects. What's worse is that fear of lawsuits now deprives us of things that make our lives better.

Sure, fear of the "invisible fist" makes manufacturers more careful. Some lives have been saved because the litigation threat got companies to make their products safer. That's the "seen" benefit.

But that benefit comes with a bigger unseen cost: The fear that stops the bad things stops good things, too -- new vaccines, new drugs, new medical devices. Fear suffocates the innovation that, over the past century, has helped extend our life spans by almost 30 years. Every day, we lose good things.

We can't even begin to imagine the life-saving products that might have existed -- if innovators didn't live in a climate of fear. That'll be the subject of next week's column.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Oh, Come Off It, J.D.
Quoth J.D.: "Just because one side wins or looses does not mean the system failed."

I don't think you've been listening. Nobody is saying the system has failed because one side or other wins or loses. What we're saying is that the threat of frivolous litigation, both real and perceived, is causing a lot of heartburn in the world. Products are not being brought to market. Products are being taken off the market. People and companies are changing their beheviour, making us all worse off, because the risk of lawsuit has become one of the greatest risks around.

Part of the problem with frivolous lawsuits is the tendency of lawyers to select the stupidest jurors they can find.

Most of the rest of your writing is Mom's Apple Pie, much like your first posting on this case. Gee, who can disagree with Mom's Apple Pie? "All are equal before a jury", fine, fine, fine. Like when was that ever an issue? When did anybody even call that into question?

It *IS* true that lawyers for both prosecution and defense *TRY* to get jurors that are easily swayed by emotion. If what you're saying is that we are all equally screwed before a jury of morons, then we can agree.

J.D.: "For each totalitarian regime has always started with the principal that a few people can do it better. When you pick on the jury system you pick on the core value of our nation. You start to get back to the same philosophy that I addressed when I first wrote on this. Are you a communist? Because if you think that the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number is your philosophy then you are. And to quote Animal House… I am not going to stand around here and let you bad mouth America."

Great, J.D., just great. I like Mom's Apple Pie too. What the he1l any of this has to do with the topic at hand is beyond me.

It seems you accuse me of being "Communist" because I want to improve the jury system. You, however, want to protect the status quo with all of its flaws and reject any sort of improvement, particularly improvements that might prevent you from exploiting those flaws to your personal advantage. What does that make you?

Oh never mind, I know the answer. It makes you a lawyer.

The system works
Just because one side wins or looses does not mean the system failed. Each attorney, that is, the attorney for the plaintiff and the team of high priced lawyers for the defense has an equal number of challenges for cause and preemptory challenges for any reason. Remember that in the article the defense attorneys picked this jury. Just as the plaintiff's lawyers picked the jury.

Who do you think had more money in the case? GM or some lawyer suing on behalf of the family that died? GM of course - they picked the jury with a high priced jury consultant and they chose to gamble with their shareholders money. They also performed mock juries and mock trials to determine what would happen if they tried the case. As Coach Bryant used to say...every time you throw the ball down the filed one of three things can happen...and two of them are bad. GM knew the risks going in and they choose to gamble. Prior to taking this gamble they had the power to settled the case for a fair number with the family. Only in settlement does each party have control over the destiny of the case.

This is crucial to our system of justice. All of us are equal before a jury. Just as the jury can award a defense verdict – a zero dollar award – the jury can award a billion dollars. A lottery is a pure chance system. Our justice system is not a lottery as each party has years of control leading up to the jury and then can pick the jury and pick the evidence that they want to present.

If you want a system of having no right to appeal, no right to an impartial jury – just agree to arbitration on everything. Arbitrations will give that to you. But do not be mislead they are not cheaper, not better, there is no right to appeal – and if you are an individual well you only get one chance in front of the arbitrator. Here is the rub though, you only have one case, but the company you are suing or their insurance company they have 1,000’s of cases with the guy. So obviously he is not influenced by the fact that if he decides your case with full justice to you that they will not pull the 1000’s of cases they have with him… or will they? How can a mediator be “impartial” if he awards you the full value of your case and then looses his retirement because the word is out – this guy hit Farmer’s, State Farm, Kaiser, The Doctor’s Company up for the full value of the cost of lifetime care for a child that was rendered a quadriplegic. Maybe rather you would want the Federal Government to pick up the tab for such a child rather than the good doctor who negligently made the child a quad… here it comes, A NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN SPONSORED BY REPUBLICANS TO PROTECT DOCTORS FROM HAVING TO PAY WHEN THEY ARE NEGLIGENT…. PUT THE TAX PAYER IN CHARGE OF PAYING FOR THE LIFETIME OF HEALTH CARE RATHER THAN THE COMPANY, PERSON OR DOCTOR WHO CAUSED IT.

For each totalitarian regime has always started with the principal that a few people can do it better. When you pick on the jury system you pick on the core value of our nation. You start to get back to the same philosophy that I addressed when I first wrote on this. Are you a communist? Because if you think that the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number is your philosophy then you are. And to quote Animal House… I am not going to stand around here and let you bad mouth America.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.