Several months ago, when I was
eating dinner alone and watching ABC evening news, a lawsuit really ‘shocked’
me. The following ABC News Web Site gives the detail.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/04/30/judge-sues-dry-cleaners-for-65-million-readers-respond/
A client (who is an
administrative judge by himself) of a dry cleaner shop in Fort Lincoln of
Washington DC area sued the Korean owners (a couple) because the shop had lost
his trousers the day he tried to collect them.
I talked to my wife that night
and expressed my usual disappointment on the American trial law legal system
and its domain on liability issues likely being taken advantage by a tiny fraction
of people.
However, my main point is that
even the verdict will be on the dry cleaner’s side and the plaintiff lost
(which appears to be a common sense verdict in almost every country in this
‘galaxy’, with might-be US an exception, just kidding!), the immigrant couple
running the dry cleaner shop most likely will turn bankrupt because of the
attorney fees. In fact, they were. Meanwhile, it was reported ‘a tort reform
group is hosting a fundraiser on July 24 to help the Chungs (the couple) defray
their legal expenses’. But think where the public money is going to!
The second thing is that other
than the personal emotional damage on the Korean couple, it also scares many
small businessmen and those who likewise desire to open a small business of their
own. As a matter of fact, I am one of those people who have a dream to run a
small business, but very afraid of a tiny mistake that can take away the
reasonable earning and reward of a life time commitment to hard work.
The plain truth is that the dry
cleaners did make a mistake. But with thousands of transactions in a business,
who could guarantee not a single mistake is to be made (this is where the
Insurance System steps in). The magnitude of the compensation asked is by
‘common sense standard’ out of the ordinary norm. This case should have only
been limited to the jurisdiction of small claims courts no matter how ‘high
sounding’ the plaintiff explains their cases.
Quoted from ABC
“He (plaintiff)
says in court papers that he has endured ‘mental suffering, inconvenience and
discomfort.’
He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit on his
first day of work.
He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can
transport his dry cleaning to another store.”
My first gut feeling argument is
that how could you be so sure that in the next ten years there will be no other
dry cleaning shop around the area! Though this is not the point I tried to
make, the fact is that, the plaintiff later did modify the claim and sued
‘only’ for 54 millions.
The second thought is that I
don’t believe the Korean couple has saved so much money to pay (even for a one
tenth of the astronomical figure) when they lose. The calculated amount of
compensation is just ridiculous in this context. The couple eventually will just
file bankrupt and likely choose early retirement.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/trouser.trial/index.html
I intended to follow up the case
and in late June, the verdict was made by the District of Columbia Superior
Court Judge Judith Bartnoff. God bless American, this time, common sense won.
But this is by no means a guarantee that this kind of lawsuits will never
happen again. Without the reform of the liability laws, we likely will see
similar cases to be on our newsstand.
The following is an extract of a
blog, which is also what I mean.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/pants_verdict_judge_stuffs_the.html
“In most civilized
countries they do have a law which prevents these kinds of abuses. It is often
referred to as the "English Law" and states that if you sue somebody
and loose, then you pay ALL their expenses. Unfortunately, the American Trial
Lawyers Association do not like this law - it would dramatically cut into the
profits made by a large number of plaintiff's lawyers - and they also have a
HUGE lobby in DC. So you can be sure our politicians will never allow such a
law - as long as the ALTA "buys" them off.
By the way, don't think it doesn't cost the consumers - you pay
between $500 and $5,000 on the cost of a new car to cover these lawsuits!
Posted by: limey | June 25, 2007 02:24 PM “
Also, read the response to the
above comment, that follows.
The next thought is that whether
the plaintiff will appeal to a higher court and this time he will ‘employ’ a
more professional trial lawyer (or a group, Vow!) to do the job.
And, can the dry cleaning shop
sue back for compensation for attorney fees and emotional breakdown.
Lastly, can we sue for being
scared so much and not starting our business and so lose a fortune?