How is the USA considered to be such a litigious society when hiring an attorney is so expensive?

178 viewsEconomicsOther

So many public institutions and businesses in the US base much of their internal policies and procedures on limiting their liability in how they operate day to day so they don’t get sued.

When you see a no-brainer, obvious disclaimer on a product packaging or advertisement and think to yourself *why does that need to be explicitly stated?* and the answer seems to always be “so some idiot doesn’t sue them.”

Even myself as an individual need to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal liability insurance on my homeowners policy in case somebody sues me.

When people who feel that they’ve been wronged by an employer, or their kid’s school, or by another individual the advice they get online is always “get a lawyer” but how can most people afford to do that?

I know that attorneys can take money from a settlement after it’s been won, but that takes months or even years in court and with the average fee of well over $150.00 per hour for even a consultation with an attorney, how do normal people afford to sue anyone?

I am well aware that individuals seeking damages from big corporations for blatant negligence is one of the quickest ways for health and safety regulations to be reformed, like that poor woman who was burned because McDonald’s was keeping their coffee at near boiling temperatures, I’m not questioning if these lawsuits are legitimate, I’m questioning how they’re even possible?

In: Economics

25 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

US civil lawsuits still regularly use juries (unlike almost the entire rest of the world). This makes litigation particularly time-consuming, expensive, and unpredictable. And that encourages settlements. You might have a weak case, but the cost of the other party defending it (and the risk they will lose, even if the law is on their side) makes it worth it for them to settle and pay you out something just in case. If it will cost them $500,000 to defend a lawsuit, and they risk having to pay out $5m if they lose, it makes sense for them to hand over $50,000 to settle (of which your lawyers will get a decent chunk).

For the plaintiff lawyers, provided they can make enough from the cases they “win” to cover the cases they “lose,” they can make a living. And provided they have enough cases going on at once they can afford to wait a few years for the payout.

The other big thing the US has is particularly high damages. In traditional common law legal systems damages are based on “actual loss” – so if someone wrongs you, and you sue them, you only get paid what loss they actually caused you. And often that makes it not worth it to sue. But the US tends to throw in punitive damages as well, whereby a jury (see about about unpredictability) can decide to throw in a large amount of punitive damages as well, because they feel like it.

To take the McDonald’s lawsuit, *Liebeck v McDonald’s*, the jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages (to cover the actual physical damage they did to her – which was extreme), and another $2.7m in punitive damages (around $5.6m today) – two days of coffee sales – to punish them for their wrongdoing (they knew they were selling their coffee at dangerously unsafe temperatures, and had had problems with this before). The judge reduced the punitive damages, making the total $640,000 (many American legal systems have caps on punitive damages *because* juries can go a bit crazy), and then McDonald’s settled the case for some unspecified amount.

Part of why litigation is so popular *and necessary* is also due to the cost of things, particularly injuries, given how expensive US healthcare is. Liebeck originally wanted to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000, of which around $13,000 were her medical expenses (in 1992). In a place where a single medical emergency is enough to bankrupt someone, it can be necessary to try to recover your medical costs from anyone possible. Whereas in countries where healthcare is much cheaper (or even free at the point of use), there is less of a need to sue, and damages are going to be much lower naturally.

It also ties into American attitudes around individualism, entitlement and natural justice; a sense of “this person harmed me in some way so I must get compensated for this.”

You are viewing 1 out of 25 answers, click here to view all answers.