How to Sue: A Guide to Understanding Your Rights in the US Legal System

Summary

Americans are becoming more and more likely to sue as a way of resolving disputes, with the average number of civil lawsuits skyrocketing in recent years. This article explores why suing has become so commonplace in America, and how the number of cases is disproportionately high compared to other nations.


Civil lawsuits have become increasingly popular in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. The most prominent is the prevalence of a "sue first, ask questions later" mentality among Americans. Many people see suing as an easy way to make money, or as a justifiable response to a wrong or injustice. The cost and ease of suing also play a role, as filing a civil lawsuit is often cheaper than resolving a issue through a different method.

Another factor that contributes to the high number of cases is the amount of specialized lawyers and experts available to handle them. The U.S. is home to a large number of attorneys, who are often willing to take up cases. These lawyers are also backed by powerful advocacy groups and organizations that often provide legal assistance in civil suits.

Finally, the fact that many Americans are living longer and are able to stay in court longer is a big player in the rise of civil cases. People are more likely to file a lawsuit if they believe they can spend more time and resources on it, which is why the average age of plaintiffs is often greater than the average age of defendants.

Despite the popularity of suing, it is important to remember that it is not always the best way to resolve a dispute. Before filing a lawsuit, it is necessary to consider all of the factors involved, as well as the costs and risks. While lawsuits can help in certain scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that there are often better ways to resolve disputes.

In conclusion, Americans are increasingly turning to civil lawsuits to resolve disputes. This is due to a variety of factors, including the prevalence of a "sue first, ask questions later" mentality, the cost and ease of filing a lawsuit, the availability of specialized lawyers and experts, and the fact that many Americans are living longer and have the resources to stay in court longer. While lawsuits can sometimes be an effective tool, they should not be seen as the only solution to a problem.
 

The Right To Sue in the United States

The right to sue is an inherent part of the American legal system, and it is relied on by countless individuals, businesses, and organizations each year. Suing is more common in the United States than in any other industrialized nation, with the vast majority of lawsuits being civil in nature, rather than criminal.

Suing is seen as an integral part of the American way of life, and is a major part of the nation's culture. It has been a part of the American justice system since before the country's founding. The right to sue is protected by the United States Constitution and is supported by elected leaders.

One of the reasons why suing has become so common in the United States is due to its incredibly high medical costs. Many individuals and families are forced to sue to seek compensation for large medical bills, which can be a result of a medical mistake or a doctor's negligence.

The prevalence of suing in the American legal system is also due to a lack of government regulation in certain areas. This can lead to companies taking advantage of their consumers and forcing them to file a lawsuit to seek compensation for any losses incurred.

Suing is seen as a way for victims of negligence or wrongdoing to seek justice and compensation in the courts, which is why it remains so popular as a method of recourse for many Americans.

<<But President Bush made headlines recently trying to curtail the number of medical malpractice lawsuits in the belief that the lawsuits are driving doctors out of business and driving up healthcare costs in America.

"It's completely bogus. It's not based on any factual data," said William Druckman, a medical malpractice attorney in Charleston who sits on the board of governors of the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association.

"They always set up trial lawyers as the 'straw man.' Blame the 'greedy trial lawyers,'" Mr. Druckman said. "But Bush's constituency is 'big business,' which includes insurance companies, the medical industry, and the hospital industry."

However, an annual report released last month by the American Tort Reform Association concluded that medical malpractice costs rose an average of 11.8 percent per year, compared to an average annual increase of 9.2 percent per year for all other tort costs.

"Litigation has forced doctors to retire early, give up high-risk practices, or move to more stable states," said Gretchen Schaefer, director of media relations for the American Tort Reform Association in Washington, DC.

Founded in 1986, the American Tort Reform Association is a broad-based, bipartisan coalition of more than 300 businesses, corporations, municipalities, associations, and professional firms seeking an end to lawsuit "abuse."

"Of course big businesses would love not to be sued; doctors would love not to be sued. They don't want to be held accountable, but that's what trial lawyers do, that is hold big businesses—doctors and hospitals—accountable," Mr. Druckman said.

If the president has his way with Congress, he would limit damages awarded by a jury for malpractice "pain and suffering" to $250,000—a cap already found in California since 1975—to act as a disincentive to attorneys to file "frivolous lawsuits."

"Texas enacted its limit on noneconomic damages in 2003. Since that law was enacted, that state's largest medical liability insurer has dropped its rates by 17 percent," Ms. Schaefer said.

Widespread reduction in insurance premiums for doctors have yet to be seen in West Virginia since that state, in 2003, reduced the amount that may be awarded for noneconomic damages to a $250,000 maximum, according to Mr. Druckman.

"Doctors practice 'defensive medicine' because they fear litigation; defensive medicine further increases the cost of healthcare for all Americans," Ms. Schaefer said, referring to excessive medical tests ordered by doctors fearful of a misdiagnosis.

President Bush's visit last month to a "judicial hellhole" in Madison County, IL, where tort cases supposedly flourish, was part of his campaign to make tort reform a priority of his second term.

"You always hear the same thing: 'We're not against meritorious lawsuits, but we want a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages,'" Mr. Druckman said. "Then, by definition, you are punishing someone with a meritorious lawsuit by imposing a cap.

"It's the ultimate paradox. If a jury is smart enough to listen to the evidence in murder cases, I don't understand why they are thought of to be too dumb to listen to malpractice lawsuits."

The president's plan would still allow unlimited damages to cover economic losses, but legislation that passed the House of Representatives last year but stalled in the Senate to cap malpractice awards would effectively end multimillion-dollar "jackpot jury awards."

Supporters of the president's agenda on tort reform have shown in the past that they can win a majority, but not the 60 votes needed to end debate on the contentious proposal that has polarized Democrats and Republicans alike.

"The limit on noneconomic damages is controversial, which is the main reason for the stall in the Senate. On the one hand, there is the emotional argument from tort reform opponents surrounding some truly tragic cases," Ms. Schaefer said.

Democrats accused the president of trying to protect drug companies and favoring the medical industry and insurance companies who contributed to his re-election campaign. The Republican president accused Democrats of being in the pockets of trial lawyers.

"Do I have a vested interest in not having a $250,000 cap? Absolutely…but we pale in comparison to what's being put up by the medical industry, the hospital industry, in terms of lobbying. We are a speck in the ocean," Mr. Druckman said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, which is financed by the most-often-sued corporations in America, has spent millions of dollars publicizing cases where judges have permitted large lawsuits against large companies to go forward.

"Most of us—God willing—are not victims of medical malpractice. But, bottom-line, we trial lawyers are the only group out there for victims," Mr. Druckman said.

"In how many instances where victims have been contacted by the other side and have been told there was a mistake made does someone say, 'We screwed up. We want to make you a fair settlement offer so we don't have to get a lawyer involved'?

"I get hired in cases where victims have been offered nothing. I get paid nothing unless the victims are successful in their lawsuits, and I have to put up expenses, like hiring experts, which I have to 'eat' if there's a loss in the case."

The $250,000 cap being proposed is, in some cases, hardly adequate to cover the pain and suffering of medical malpractice victims, but some say rather a fake "crisis," an attempt to curb Americans' legal rights, while businesses profit.

Yet, regardless of the emotional and economic extremes each side puts forth, the issue may have to get in line before it is addressed. In a joint study, the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization that studies healthcare issues, and the Harvard School of Public Health said reducing malpractice jury awards ranked 11th on a list of 12 items people thought should be healthcare priorities for the president.

Nonetheless, the issue grabs headlines, gets people talking, and seems to have an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides.

"I have yet to see anything in President Bush's proposal that would limit any individual's right to sue. ATRA believes that every American with a legitimate claim deserves his or her day in court," Ms. Schaefer said.

In contrast, Mr. Druckman pointed out, "If you have a kid who becomes, say, a spastic quadriplegic, and you divide the $250,000 by his normal life expectancy, that's 'pennies on the day' compared to the value of his life and what has been destroyed as a result of medical malpractice."

Still, despite the apparently intractable sides of the debate, given the president's focus on the issue, some type of reform is likely to follow. If so, it may be that a compromise solution lies hidden in America.

In the joint study's telephone survey conducted in November, 72 percent of the 1,396 respondents support legislation requiring an independent specialist review of a case before a lawsuit could be filed, and 63 percent favored caps on damages for "pain and suffering."

Although either or even both solutions together would not necessarily satisfy either side of the debate, the numbers indicate that some type of gatekeeper and/or review system might begin to curb the frivolous lawsuits while allowing those with real grievances to have their days in court.