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
If a lawyer expects to win they will often take a case on contingency and just take their money on the back end.
Mostly? Corporate propaganda. Look up the details of the McDonald’s Hot coffee lawsuit. They drug that poor grandmother’s name through the mud, because creating a social stigma around lawsuits is cheaper than paying them. Plus, it hurts their brand less if it looks like the other person is being unreasonable rather than that they were actually that negligent. So your mud slinging runs in the media 24/7, and your country gets a reputation for being very litigious.
With the types of cases you describe, many laywers will take the case for “free” and then, should you win, take a sizeable cut of whatever money you are awarded.
Lots of lawyers sue on a contingency basis. If they lose, you pay nothing. If they win, they get to charge their rate, and take a cut of the winnings. If they even get a settlement, they get paid before the plaintiff, so they make enough to live and repeat until they hit their jackpot.
Some people are just assholes who saw “that MacDonald’s coffee lady got millions so I should too” and are willing to hire a lawyer to attack someone or a company for some slight expecting a huge payday.
That infamous MacDonalds lawsuit where the old lady got 3rd degree burns is considered the cultural moment where everyone started suing everyone else for a pay day. It was totally a legit suit though, she didn’t want a huge payday she just wanted to be compensated for her medical costs, but the jury found MacDonalds had acted negligently enough to warrant paying her damages. It’s worth looking up if you are curious, it’s not the frivolous lawsuit a lot of people claim it to be.
There’s a number of ‘don’t pay unless I win’ lawyers in the US, but they don’t take on cases that they don’t have a reasonable chance of winning in the first place.
Many people that sue expect to settle out of court for considerably less than they are suing for. Businesses often don’t want to get stuck in court paying legal fees and getting bad press so they are often willing to settle out of court for a fee and an agreement that you won’t talk to the media about it.
There’s also a lot of vexatious litigants, meaning people that make constant frivolous lawsuits in order to harass people.
They are often pro-se meaning that they represent themselves and know just enough about the legal system to submit a lawsuit. They are usually laughed out of court, and on the extreme end are held in contempt for abusing the legal process. (Let alone if they are sovereign citizen nutjobs to boot).
Yet they force people to hire legal teams for their defense, cost people time and money, and waste the courts time.
If lawyers think the lawsuit has merit and will pay out they will often offer their services with no upfront fee and will take their payment as percentage of winnings if successful in court.
Source with hard data? I’ve heard that Germany is more litigious but reputations are reputations
Because the USA permits very high damages to the plaintiff if they win contrary to other english speaking countries.
Example: The famous McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit. In Canada, the lady would at most got her medical bills, some loss of revenue, her legal fees and maybe a bit more. Not millions.
That’s not a problem. All large corporations and businesses are permanently employing lawyers in their legal department. In many cases these are entire teams, not a single person.
The problem is more with small businesses that cannot afford such luxury. They have to ask legal advice from established practices and that can be expensive.
In some other countries if you sue and lose, you automatically have to pay the legal costs of the person you sued. This is a big factor in deterring meritless lawsuits.
Latest Answers