The Long Road

03/02/2004 Archived Entry: "Suits"

So I'm taking a course this term, MTHEL100 - Business Law For Math Students. The course is pretty interesting as it doesn't only deal with the business related side of law but also gives an overview of civil law and the judicical system.

What grabbed my attention in the first few classes was how different my view and that of the prof's were regarding lawsuits. The prof, a lawyer whose name sounds like Harvey Pekar, seems much more focused on the "if you're wronged somehow, we have to make sure that we sue each and every person responsible for the full amount you should be owed". For example, if you slip and break something on someone's icy entrance, he'd probably suggest you sue the tenant, landlord, and mother nature. I on the other hand look at it more like "wow, there are like a million ways I can get sued". I'm much more concerned with being on the receiving end of a lawsuit than going after others if something were to happen to me, in fact I doubt that suing someone would really enter my mind at all. While the prof does go over ways in which you can defend yourself when sued, he's definately more interested in the suing side of things.

Is it a personality thing that causes these two different perspectives? Is it a lawyer thing? Cuz I'm sure suing is more profiteable than defending.

Replies: 19 comments

I've always thought more in his direction. (he's the same prof i had for the course...gary petker i believe) I think your way of thinking is just depressing, wouldn't you rather be thinking about how you could sue other people (like i do every time i almost slip on someone's icy walkway), or would you rather spend your time worry about every way someone could sue you.

Posted by Mike @ 03/02/2004 08:04 PM EST

I took an equivalent course last term (BUS 231), and I would have to either disagree that all lawyers are the same as your lawyer, or that you are not understanding the methodology of law your professor is teaching.

Let's take the slip on ice example (we had a simmilar case). When you slip and injure yourself on the ice, and you require medical attention of some kind that costs you money, that's not fair. Why should you have to pay if someone did a terrible job cleaning their sidewalk?

In that situation, someone in law needs to look at the alternatives, and weigh each one. There are many factors to consider. Can you sue them both? Are there any defenses you need to worry about? What proof do you have? Do they have any money?

Not to sound like a greedy person about that last one, but you have to consider, is it worth getting a judgement against someone if they can't pay you anything in the first place?

On the other hand, my professor and the textbook brought up a distrubing idea of Professional Liability. I'd need to look up my textbook to get a better idea, but right now in Canada, if you give advice as a professional, and someone overhears and acts on that advice, you could be held liable. I believe many lawyers and judges are looking for a Supreme Court decsion on this eventually...

Posted by ian @ 03/03/2004 09:41 AM EST

Myself, I've never had such a course. My main exposure to lawsuits and such comes through the media. News and ficticious television, mostly all fromthe US (presuming there's a difference between the two types of media there).

From what I've seen, I've been given the impression that a lot of people seem to think in the way of "let's sue everyone responsible for allowing this ice to form, including Mother Nature's parents."

I guess it's reflective of the way you look at things. Myself, I don't look at such situations as an opportunity to sue people, nor would I worry that people might sue me. I'm more of a mind to think that it's all very much unnecessary.

Granted, as ian pointed out, there can be cases where perhaps medical attention costs you money which should be paid for by the responsible parties, but other than that, I can't really think of a situation in which I'd want to sue someone.

Even using the example of medical attention: In Canada we have public health care so that would seem to not be very applicable.

Posted by Romer @ 03/03/2004 09:58 AM EST

In law, there are three types of damages awarded. Everyone who takes a law course takes this and a description can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages

Special damages are fairly common awards, and it seems like most people here agree with them most of the time. They are quite frequent, and so don't get much attention in the news. These are things like unpaid bills, wages, etc.

General damages are sometimes seen as milking by some people. Because they are by their very nature subjective, everyone can (and does) have opinions about what is or isn't fair. As you can see with some of the examples, some people might just say 'too bad'. Both Canada and the US have caps on these awards, with Canada's caps often lower, so we tend to hear some stories about US cases where they recieve lots of cash for pain.

But the real crazy lawsuits are the ones that result in punitive damages. These damages are wonky because, unlike special and general damages which try to compensate for the orginal harm, punitive damages are used to punish activties that the court finds appaling and wilfully undertook. In these cases, the plantiff doesn't deserve the money, they just happen to be the one that brings the behaviour to light.

Because the judgement has to be large enough to punish the company, and the plantiff only really gets the money by luck, these are the cases that get so much publicity.

For example, one woman spilled McDonalds coffee on herself and won $3 million dollars from McDonalds (people might also remember the simmilar Seinfeld episode where Kramer spills coffee on himself).

For a description of the facts, check here:
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

In this case, McDonalds had refused to deal with the woman, they were aware of many others that had the same problem and chose to ignore it, and many other problems.

There have been laws since this incident that have reduced the amount of punitive damages that are permitted. Laws are always changing, so there might be even fewer of these big-ticket lawsuits in the future.

Posted by ian @ 03/03/2004 10:43 AM EST

Professional Liability is a pretty scary thing, the example that was given in class is if you give someone some false advice and they tell their grandmother who then acts on this advice, you end up being liable to the grandmother as well. So only give out good advice, everyone!

Also, I remember vaguely that one of the 3 forms of damages don't exist in Canada...maybe punitive.

Posted by Rayne @ 03/03/2004 12:40 PM EST

All forms of damages exist in Canada, including punitive damages:
http://www.harperrisk.com/Punitive.htm

However, punitive damages in Canada aare much more restricted than they are in the US, and almost never escelate to the same levels.

Posted by ian @ 03/03/2004 01:18 PM EST

my only question is ... you find business law interesting rayne?

*shudders* ... makes me remember the horrible days with phartman@wlu.ca (i just thought it was funny that his email address sounded like fartman)

i was taking a risk management course in the summer and we had someone come in and talk about some crazy cases ... like in the states .. parents have sued high schools when their kids don't make the team ... or the canadian who somehow hurt his ... uh .. member while using a toilet in a seattle starbucks .. he got money plus his gf/wife b/c she was deprived of conjugal obligations or something like that

i think that the caps on cases are a good thing ... but ... isn't the strategy in suing someone to sue everyone that could be involved (b/c you wanna make sure you can get money out of it ... or make ppl own up to their liabilities) and then to high ball the number b/c you're likely never going to get that in the first place

and in business law ... i thought we were really taught both sides of the situation ... how to make ppl make restitutions for how they wronged you ... and also on the defensive end how to avoid being in those situations yourself .... it's all a delicate balance

Posted by melpie @ 03/03/2004 02:35 PM EST

yeah, it's interesting. Granted it's also a bit dry and involves mostly memorization but at the same time business law is such a useful thing to know (or so it would seem). I think I appreciate anything that describes the structure of our society. That's why I love Econ!

And then there is, of course, the parade of weird court cases that get presented - that's definately the best part.

Posted by Rayne @ 03/03/2004 03:10 PM EST

meplie...

In law, you cannot just sue anyone. In most cases, there is only one person you can sue. Often, you cannot directly sue the person responsible, but you can start a chain. For instance, suppose owner A contacts B to clean the sidewalks. If you slip and fall and you can prove that the job was negligent, you can sue A, because they own the property. You cannot sue B, because they do not owe the duty of care to you (this is just an example, and may not be true everywhere). However, A can then sue B in turn for doing a bad job. In the end, it's as if you sued B directly, except the lawyers end up richer. (cue conspiracy theory)

The amount you sue for is strictly regulated by laws and precedents. Your special damages must be detailed and quite specific, and if your general damage figures are outside accepted ranges established by precendents or law, the court will throw out your case. Granted, you can request the high-end of the range, but justification is almost always required.

Posted by ian @ 03/03/2004 03:35 PM EST

but you name every defendant you can when filing a suit ... right? (this is what i recall of bus 231 at least ...) ... especially since there are often times when one party is not 100% responsible ..

also the high-ball thing of course you don't want to high-ball it too much but when it comes to general damages ... how do you know how much is too much ... there are definitely more guidelines and lower awards in canada... but when you look to the states ... the lawyers are always pushing the envelope ... judges often adjust general damage claims down so you have to account for that when deciding how much in general damages you should sue for ... right? oh dear ... maybe having wine at lunch wasn't such a good idea

Posted by melpie @ 03/03/2004 03:42 PM EST

p.s. rayne, what the heck is business law for math students? like ... how is it specially for math students? like .. business law is business law ... isn't it?

Posted by melpie @ 03/03/2004 03:43 PM EST

I think when math students take it, it's "business law for math students". I know the same course is taken under some other course codes/names.

My impression is that you sue everyone that's potentially responsible. If your car tire blows due to malfunction you sue the guys who sold you the car, who put the tire on the car, who made the tire. You reach as far and wide as you can to get the most money possible (because it might get adjusted down).

Posted by Rayne @ 03/03/2004 03:51 PM EST

"We wear lawsuits when we get high, high, high."

- Marilyn Manson, Ka-Boom Ka-Boom

"Go call you a lawyer, file you a lawsuit
I'll smile in the courtroom and buy you a wardrobe"

- Eminem, The way I am

Posted by Anonymous #2 @ 03/03/2004 04:06 PM EST

Oh, in my previous post I was thinking of contract law. in tort law, yeah, you can (and probably should) sue everyone who was partially responsible. And sure, you normally ask for the highest amount possible, because a court will adjust damages downwards, but they don't usually adjust upwards.

In conclusion, I am a fool!

Posted by ian @ 03/03/2004 04:18 PM EST

i concur with that conclusion!

besides, tort law is so much more interesting than contract law .. although, there were some interesting things that i did learn about contracts ... things that are important for business ppl to know ... of course, i don't really remember any of them by now ... but i did ... once upon a time ... many moons ago ...

Posted by melpie @ 03/03/2004 05:26 PM EST

wow, all of this just seemed to go nowhere, and i read it all, now I'm the fool.

But in conclusion, if you spill coffee on yourself, you're a fool. And if you sue mcdonalds for making you fat, you're just a fat bastard!

Posted by Mike @ 03/03/2004 08:19 PM EST

I really, really hate that everyone takes this McDonald's Coffee lawsuit as the "one" lawsuit which shows how the legal system is fucked up. Because it shows exactly the opposite; the legal system WORKS, and the McDonalds coffee lawsuit is proof.

A quick google finds McFacts about the lawsuit, including that McDonalds served their coffee far too hot, knew that consumers could be hurt, and yet did it anyways.

Posted by Joe @ 03/03/2004 11:38 PM EST

Wow, joe, that site is really enlightening, thanks for posting it!

Posted by Étienne @ 03/04/2004 10:19 AM EST

I think most lawsuits are against a group of people because no one wants to think of themselves as a mean greedy person. By suing the landlord, tenant, and mother nature you seem like the victim because in your head your not suing a poor innocent person, your going after irresponsible businesses who deserve a lesson. It's the same deal with things like car accidents, you're essentially going after the insurance comapany, who everyone hates anyway, not the person who hit you.

Posted by Doug @ 03/04/2004 10:44 AM EST