It’s one of those cases that causes those of us who represent consumers to shake our heads. An affluent woman who has been bleaching her hair since childhood sues an upscale salon for botched hair treatment. She seeks $50,000 in humiliation damages, plus substantial out-of-pocket expenses for hair treatment and childcare.

Deliberating for just an hour, the jury found against her by a margin of 11-1.  That’s about as quick and complete a rejection as you see in a jury trial case.

The lawyer representing the dissatisfied salon patron, Leta Gorman, is a shareholder at Bullivant Houser, a large west-coast law firm.  She  typically defends manufacturers in injury cases.  According to the news account, the lawyer defending the salon argued that this was a “frivolous lawsuit.”

Oddball cases get twisted, and I imagine this one will show up in the echo chamber of distortion. What the Chamber of Commerce and others who decry lawsuit abuse miss is this: most damage lawsuits are filed by businesses. Here, an affluent and sophisticated consumer seeking beauty in a bottle sued when things went bad. It’s fine for the Chamber of Commerce to complain, but it ought to be truthful about how only the wealthy can afford the luxury of litigation of thin cases.

For those of us who represent injured people, this is one of those eye rollers. It’s an eye roller because cases for people with profound injuries have to wait in line behind luxury litigators. It’s an eye roller because our judicial system–which is strained and underfunded–has to deal with this type of claim. And it’s an eye roller because it gives squawk box material to those who can’t discern between claims for those wrongfully injured and those who litigate simply because they can afford to do so.

For all the heat and the noise, the true story is about quiet wisdom. That wisdom came from the jury. One of the jurors, Del Shaw, was quoted in The Oregonian. His simple assessment is the real story: “We took a look at the facts and didn’t feel the facts supported the claim.” That left me smiling because it simply shows that the jury considered the evidence and made a decision based upon the merits.

In that way, the case proves what those of us who work in the trenches know. Juries generally get it right.

David Sugerman

Back on the kleptocracy, and it looks like the Chamber of Commerce is working to keep its position at the trough by threatening to go to war with the incoming Obama administration. It seems that the Chamber is concerned about how new or revised regulations that reverse the Bush-era’s kleptocracy may affect the Chamber. The Chamber, of course, opposes the rules, claiming that they will benefit plaintiffs’ trial lawyers.

Classic diversion tactic, as the Chamber fails to take responsibility for its role in the financial meltdown. In fact, the Chamber got paid handsomely to lobby against regulation.  In their rush to demonize trial lawyers, the Chamber always forgets to mention its role in lobbying for failed insurance giant, AIG. I’m going to guess that when and if the real story of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets told, trial lawyers will be the least of their concerns.

Meanwhile, let’s be clear about a few things. Americans of all backgrounds, ages, races, and political persuasions voted for change. The kleptocracy is over. No more feeding at the trough. It’s time to put regulations in place because taxpayers–and our children–are going to pay for your greed and the lack of oversight that got us here. It’s time that corporations paid their fair share of taxes. It’s time to make sure that juries decide product safety issues. It’s time for equal pay for the same work, regardless of race or gender. In short, the Chamber of Commerce’s time at the trough is over.

David Sugerman

I do most of the grocery shopping for the family, so like everyone else, I’ve been wide-eyed at the steep increase in food prices.  I’ve heard a lot about rising fuel prices, credit crunches, and inflation as part of the talking heads’ various explanations for the whys of it all.

I almost missed this piece on a federal lawsuit against a vegetable processor, SK Foods, that alleges that SK bribed purchasing agents at various food companies to keep SK’s prices high. If it’s true, some big companies like Safeway, Heinz, Kraft, were getting bribes to inflate prices on SK’s goods.

Nothing like graft, corruption and bribery to add to the cost of living. I couldn’t resist the urge to check in with my good friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They’re the ones that keep screaming about “lawsuit abuse” as the great drag on the American economy. Of course, they don’t seem to discuss this lawsuit as an example of “lawsuit abuse.” In fact, they don’t talk about bribery at all. I suppose in the Chamber’s world, the government shouldn’t bring lawsuits to address bribery and corruption by large corporations.

David Sugerman