Wonders never cease. Here’s a blog post at the Oregon Class Action blog about the California tort reform advocate who filed a class action against the City of Sacramento for towing his illegally parked car. Can’t hardly wait to see how this one comes out!

David Sugerman

This is for all tort reform advocates, like those smart folks at the Wall Street Journal, who spout the simplistic suggestion that a loser pay rule would improve the American civil justice system. The Times Online reports on Lord Justice Jackson’s lengthy report on the United Kingdom’s civil justice system. The upshot is that Lord Justice Jackson recommends ending the United Kingdom’s loser pays rule.

Leave it to The Times to get to the heart of the matter: “The civil justice system has priced itself out of the reach of ordinary people; they face financial ruin if they venture into court and lose.”

The issue is access to justice. In a loser pay system, only the wealthy can access the courts. That is so contrary to the American way. Let’s all mark this lesson as a response when the smart folks at the Wall Street Journal start pushing for limits that treat justice as a luxury item.

David Sugerman

Texans are proud of doing things in a big way.  Unfortunately, big, loud and proud sometimes misses the mark on the wisdom front. It happened again.

In 2003, Texans went big and amended their state constitution to cap damages that can be recovered in medical malpractice claims. The proponents argued long and loud about the parade of horribles, often with little or no supporting documentation. We’ve heard it all before here in Oregon, too: doctors leaving the state, plus defensive medicine are responsible for the high cost of consumers’ health insurance. The Texas tort reformers sold the big and loud constitutional amendment as a means of lowering consumers’ medical costs.

Guess what? It didn’t work. This report explains that consumer health insurance costs have continued to climb in Texas.  Texas consumers gave away their rights and didn’t even get the benefit they were promised.

Much of the rhetoric about medical liability lawsuits is simply noise. The better information is that serious medical errors cause substantial injuries, that frivolous lawsuits are rare enough to be urban myth, and that medical errors can happen in clusters.

Damage caps are filled with vices. They substitute a lobbyist driven one-size-fits-all form of justice for a jury’s determination based upon a review of the facts and evidence on a case-by-case basis. Damage caps often discriminate against the retired, the elderly and the poor.

Those who live in Texas are proud of their state.  I’m not meaning to throw stones. I imagine Texas voters truly believed they were getting something of value when they gave away their rights by amending the Texas Constitution.  The rest of us are better served to take it as a lesson and not go down the same road.

David Sugerman

Here’s a disconcerting story about anti-consumer legislation pending in California. The bill would limit consumer class actions by allowing unhappy defendants to appeal pro-consumer rulings. There are multiple levels of irony in California’s AB298.

It’s being pushed by the “Civil Justice Association.”  Turns out that the Civil justice Association is controlled by AIG, bailed out banks and big tobacco reps. George Orwell is having a heckuva of laugh over that one.

Consumer class actions are one of the few remaining methods that the rest of us use to exercise control over corporate profiteers gone wild. They provide consumers with the ability to obtain civil justice by forcing rogue corporations to refund ill-gotten profits from illegal schemes.

Automatic appeals slow cases. We’ve seen this problem in Oregon, as our Comcast late fee class action has taken almost five years to date, and it’s nowhere near over. And that five years inclued one automatic appeal already. Brought to you by AIG should be enough to kill this. But of course, that only happens if consumers make noise.

David Sugerman

I’m not a big fan of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. For years, they’ve led a concerted effort to bar the courthouse doors for ordinary Americans.  And now we learn that the Chamber is at the center of the deregulation frenzy that led to the Wall Street financial collapse.  Among the many points of interest:

• U.S. Chamber received  some $23 million (through a foundation) paid by AIG to lobby for changes in regulatory oversight
• The same U.S. Chamber champions the $700 billion bailout (Query: How much is that really going to cost us?)
• The U.S. Chamber used “tort reform” as the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing approach to strip away post-Enron reforms.

Look at this video where the Chamber begs and bullies for the bailout.  Against the backdrop of their responsibility, this is goofy.  Shameless.

David Sugerman

This is a post about what is not there. Right here in River City, a federal court jury found in favor of Adidas Corp. on its trade infringement claim against Payless Shoes, finding damages in excess of $300 million.  The Chamber of Commerce and its allies have long shouted out major screeds about the civil justice system, claiming that it is horribly unfair because juries award too much money.

But when a business got a huge award, the Chamber sat silently. I suppose this should come as no surprise, but the Chamber and its friends have nothing on their websites about the Adidas verdict.  Neither does the American Tort Reform Association.

Nope, their attacks on the civil justice system focus on cases brought by injured consumers.  And some–like the magic pants guy–are grounded in half truths. In the assinine case of the judge who sued the drycleaner for his lost pants–the magic pants guy–anyone who follows the whole story learns that the system works just fine.  But that won’t stop the Chamber from parading it as a horrible or the American Tort Reform Association’s ridicule.

So one thing that this deafening silence suggests is that the Chamber and the American Tort Reformers only complain about lawsuits brought by individuals. Another is that their complaints–too much money awarded in civil lawsuits–are really not complaints about the amount of money so much as they are about who gets the money.

I’ve got nothing in the Adidas case. They have a right to enforce the value that they’ve poured into their brands. But let’s be fair. When the Chamber wants the rest of the world to believe that its war on the civil justice system is honest and open, it will call foul when a corporation gets the outsized verdict. Anything else just smells really, really bad.

David Sugerman

The Oregoinian’s Brent Hunsberger reports on this eye-catching honking huge trade infringement verdict handed down in U.S. District Court in Portland yesterday. Looks like the grand total–some $305 million–is a lot of cash for a dispute over whether Payless stores ripped off Adidas by selling knock-off products.

I’ve got no cause to question all this, except that business vs. business disputes leave me yawning and struggling to stay awake. But here’s what’s interesting. We’ve heard for years about how we’re overlawyered, how class actions take too much money from businesses for ripped off consumers, and how people recover too much money in lawsuits. A lot of the drumbeat comes from the Chamber of Commerce. Here’s a window on one of its slick mouthpieces–I mean affiliates–that gives a great snapshot of the Chamber of Commerce’s view of litigation.

So here’s the question that I can’t avoid asking: What’s the Chamber going to say about a verdict where a business recovers $300 million for a claim of trade infringement? What are the going to say over at overlawyered? How about the institute for legal reform? How about the American Tort Reform Association? I’ll be watching. Because I’m sure that they will trumpet this case of a business getting too much money from a jury. I imagine we’ll see screeds about frivolous lawsuits. And there will surely be concerns raised about how lawsuits like these are ruining society. And that it’s too much money. Oh yeah, and the lawyers are behind it all.

Don’t get me wrong. While trade infringement lawsuits don’t get me juiced, I can see the logic and the need. As Mr. Hunsberger’s report makes clear, companies like Adidas’ intellectual property represents the true value of the enterprise.  So they’re aggrieved, and they use our civil justice system to defend themselves. I get that.

But here’s the deal:  I have the sneaking suspicion that all the outrage about big verdicts is really nothing more than class warfare on the middle class. So as you can imagine, I’m grabbing one of those big things of popcorn and settling in for the show.  I can’t wait to hear what the Chamber of Commerce and its friends say about this one.

David Sugerman

The Center for Justice and Democracy compiles fact sheets on a number of civil litigation topics, including case filings, litigation expenses, lawyer fees and the like.

Here’s a nice annotated summary from the Civil for Justice and Democracy of the myths connected with the civil justice system:

http://centerjd.org/MB_2007civil.htm

Two of my favorites:

1) The “frivolous lawsuit malpractice crisis” is shown to be a myth.

From an article in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“A recent Harvard School of Public Health study that closely examined 1452 closed claims concluded that ‘[p]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.’[fn4] The study found that most injuries resulting in claims were caused by medical error, and that those that weren’t were, nevertheless, not “frivolous” claims. [fn5]“

Source: David M. Studdert, Michelle Mello, et al., “Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation,” New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006.

2) And then there’s the tidal wave of litigation that is overrunning our courts because too many injured people file lawsuits:

“The number of tort trials concluded in U.S. District Courts declined by 80 percent from 1985 to 2003.”

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, “Civil Justice Statistics,” found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm

There are all sorts of other topics covered in the CJD reports. If the general importance of the civil justice system matters to you, you might want to peruse their website, www.centerjd.org

David F. Sugerman