lawsuit industry report

T

theinvisibleheart

New member
www.triallawyersinc.com

Link to 32-page 2003 TRIAL LAWYERS INC. report by Manhattan Institute:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/triallawyersinc.pdf

Very informative website. Here are some interesting excerpts:

As of 2003,
___________________________________________________________________
1. tort costs exceed $200B (B=Billion) annually

2. it's more than 2% of U.S. GDP

3. tort cost in U.S. are substantially higher than other developed nation

4. in 2001, tort costs grew by 14.3%

5. over the last 30 years, tort costs grew at an annualized rate of 9.1% compared to CPI(measure of inflation) at 5%, U.S. population at 1.1%, and GDP at 7.6%
___________________________________________________________________

* The overall cost of the tort tax over the next ten years may be almost triple the size of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts combined.--2003 Trial Lawyers, Inc.



Tort costs have hit medical industry particularly hard:
___________________________________________________________________
1. more than half of all physicians have being sued.

2. the rate of medical malpractice tort have risen faster than medical insurance premium or medical-care inflation rate for last 20+ years.

3. b/w 2000-2002, medical malpractice insurance rates have risen 30-75%, depending on the area.

4. in 2002, 3 of the top 10 awards were in the range of $80M-$94.5M (M=million).
___________________________________________________________________



In addition, in at least 3 product areas, litigation has killed or decreased product innovation (creation of new products) due to cost of litigation or potential litigation.
___________________________________________________________________
1. aviation industry
The reason for that is that the manufacturer can be sued if the pilot did not carry adequate insurance to compensate the victims.

So if the pilot crashed the plane due to his own negligence, passengers can still sue the manufacturer if the pilot did not carry enough insurance.

2. Rx drugs
Drug companies get sued for alleged side effects and product defects of new drugs even though they passed FDA approval process. Cost of litigation results in withdrawal of already approved drugs as well as less money for research and development required for new drugs.

3. birth control devices(BCD)
Lawsuits against BCD such as Norplant and IUDs have resulted in killing the research into new contraceptives. During last decade, only 3 new contraceptives (all based on variation of existing technology) came into the market.

Furthermore, because defense against litigation eats into profit, U.S. companies today spend 20X more on new cosmetics then research into new contraceptives.
___________________________________________________________________


Lawyers almost killed domestic U.S. vaccine manufacturers:
2003 Trial Lawyers said:
Congress in 1986 saved the few remaining vaccine manufacturers from near bankruptcy by shielding them from lawsuits (vaccines inevitably cause side effects in some of the recipients).
Click to expand...


Individual plaintiffs walk away with pennies:
2003 Trial Lawyers said:
In most class action cases, Trial Lawyers, Inc. rakes in huge fees while individual plaintiffs walk away with pennies.

In medical malpractice cases these days, Trial Lawyers, Inc. often takes between 40% and 70% of the award for its fees and costs.

In tabacco litigation, lawyers who never went to trial and never filed an original brief have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.
Click to expand...
 
I recall Nestle's statement as to why they refused to market their self-heating coffee cans in the US was on the order of mentioning the McDonald's lawsuit and Americans' propensity to sue for their own stupidity. I'm sure they pictured some dork sticking in their eye and pulling the tab, then suing.
 
In most class action cases, Trial Lawyers, Inc. rakes in huge fees while individual plaintiffs walk away with pennies.

In medical malpractice cases these days, Trial Lawyers, Inc. often takes between 40% and 70% of the award for its fees and costs.

In tabacco litigation, lawyers who never went to trial and never filed an original brief have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.
Click to expand...

Ah yes its all the trial lawyers fault:rolleyes:

To give you an idea of how ridiculously slanted and biased you piece is, lets look at just these 3 statements.

The first statement is true. What they don't tell you is that a single person or persons hire a lawyer and file suit on behalf of the class. These main plaintiffs usually recieve a large judgement. Everyone else in the class gets a letter explaining the nature of the suit and telling them their rights. Most times, people aren't even aware of the suit, or even that their rights were violated and they VOLUNTARILY do nothing. After trial they usually get a small check for DOING NOTHING. Thats their choice.

The 2nd statement may or may not be true. Regardless, at the outset of the litigation, the client contracts with the lawyer for either a contingency fee or an hourly fee. The client know this and if they don't like it they can take their business elsewhere.

The third statement is my personal favorite. Several of the lawyers who won the huge lawsuit against big tobacco were Baylor lawyers (my alma mater) and I've talked with them at length. At trial there were either 3 or 4 lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Now do you honestly think that in a case worth hundreds of millions of dollars there are only going to be 3 or 4 attorneys working on the case? Give me a break. Both sides had armies of attorneys working around the clock.

As far as filing an "original" brief I don't really know what that has to do with anything. Its customary for the lead attorney(s) to file briefs and motions with the court even if they don't actually write it. Unless its something utterly crucial, they usually farm it out to an associate, review it, and slap their name on it. Thats the practice of law.



Don't get me wrong, our society has become overly litigious. Everything ends up in court and awards (in most cases) are ridiculous. And thats coming from a lawyer. That said however, this doesn't make unfounded and baseless attacks like this website valid.
 
You think the tobacco/vaccine/gun suits are bad, you outta try (nice pun!) a nasty divorce case where child custody is disputed.

Best interests schmest interests, bah! :(
 
Yup it's biased which means it all FALSE (;-)

they used the data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, a consulting firm. Their data has being used for research in grad school. It's considered fairly reliable in academia (finance, economics).

Tort cost being 2-3% of the GDP is something that is quoted by other sources such as Hoover Institute. For example, if you listen to the following debate, you will also hear it.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2934356.html

I don't know if the reputation of other posters on this thread are as sterling as the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, but I would consider the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN in higher regards than most people's credentials, including my own.

--John
 
they used the data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, a consulting firm. Their data has being used for research in grad school. It's not considered unbiased in academia (finance, economics).
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING in this world is biased, especially in academecia :)

WildimnotcommentingonewayortheotheronthedatacuzihaventanalyzeditAlaska
 
As I see it, part of the problem is "punitive" damages that are completely out of proportion to the original injury. This is based, in part, on the idea that a $3 Billion company paying out, say, $1 million, "isn't hurt" by such an award, so the lawyers ask for $120 million or even more.

While that may be true in some cases, it gets absolutely silly with certain lawyers. All we have to do is look at that lawsuit a judge initiated over a lost pair of slacks.
 
All we have to do is look at that lawsuit a judge initiated over a lost pair of slacks.
Click to expand...

That judge may be facing a suit for malicious prosecution, dont knw why there hasnt been a counterclaim

WildjusticewillbedoneusuallysometimesAlaska
 
they used the data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, a consulting firm. Their data has being used for research in grad school. It's considered fairly reliable in academia (finance, economics).

Tort cost being 2-3% of the GDP is something that is quoted by other sources such as Hoover Institute. For example, if you listen to the following debate, you will also hear it.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2934356.html

I don't know if the reputation of other posters on this thread are as sterling as the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, but I would consider the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN in higher regards than most people's credentials, including my own.
Click to expand...

I'll challenge both their credentials and their motivation. I already illustrated to you that the 3 beefs that they have are patently false. AS far as being used for research in grad school, I'd say that carrys as much weight as most other things used in grad school... not much.

I'll put my experience up against whatever survey or "data" they have. Just because you read it doesn't make it true.
 
I remember one, Lawsuit against a fast food chain. Customer sued cause she burned her mouth with hot coffee. IIRC, the suit was finally tossed out, but come one. This is a suit that never should have entered the system
 
What I like best is the same people that argue a gun is a tool are the ones blaming lawyers for starting a case. I'd be the richest man in the world if I could somehow be responsible for the clients walking through my door.
 
Tort reform is good for the corporations and businesses that do not want to pay for their mistakes or play by the law. Don't be a young person and get injured or have medical malpractice done on you here in Texas.

Most folks have to get lawyers on a contingency basis. If the penalties are small for egregious behavior that cause harm good luck on finding an attorney.

People are always bringing up the McDonald's case. You might want to do some reading as to the actual outcome and what the lady asked for in the first place and what the actual awards wee slashed too. The final settlement was actually smaller than what the judge slashed it too.

http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/TortReformOct04.pdf

Ken lay was a big supporter of Tort reform here in Texas...hrmmmm

Smith’s 85-year-old mother, an Alzheimer’s patient, was living at the Heritage Duvall Gardens nursing home in Austin. Late one
night, a staffer entered Smith’s mother’s room and allegedly raped the elderly woman. Another employee witnessed the assault, but apparently
didn’t bother to report it to anyone and went home after his shift finished. Smith only learned about the assault because the witness mentioned
it to someone at the home during an unrelated conversation later the next day. After her mother was examined at a hospital, the assailant was
arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault. Smith then consulted a lawyer about filing suit against the nursing home for poorly
supervising its employees.

When Smith looked for an attorney, she discovered her first hurdle might be simply finding one willing to take the case. The first attorney she called declined, as few lawyers in Texas will now handle such a complaint. Then she contacted Bragg, who explained to her that the most her mother could
win would be $250,000, because there were no economic damages involved. Smith’s mother, after all, didn’t have a job to lose and she didn’t
incur significant medical bills. After taxes and legal fees, she would receive at most $100,000. That would make her ineligible for Medicaid,
meaning the money would end up being funneled back into the nursing home industry that failed her in the first place.
Click to expand...


After listening to the rhetoric for the past eight years, at least one Republican small businessman back in Texas is no longer buying
it. A few years ago, if you had asked Houston small business owner and Republican Walt Shofner whether he supported Bush and his war
on lawsuits, he would have said yes. But in 2000, Shofner discovered the reality behind the PR campaign. His company designed software for
insurance companies, and had recently beaten out a larger competitor on a bid to upgrade software at Prudential Life in New Jersey.
Afterwards, the competitor, Computer Science Corp. (CSC), accused his firm of violating a nondisclosure contract and asked American
Express and Prudential to cancel their contracts with Shofner, which they did. Shofner sued, arguing that CSC, a corporate giant with nearly
$10 billion in revenues in 2000, was simply trying to squelch competition. The jury agreed and awarded Shofner $8 million in punitive damages.
But after the jury announced its verdict, the judge declared that he had to reduce the award to $200,000 because of the damage caps Bush
signed in 1995. Shofner—as well as the jury—was shocked. Fred Kronz, one of the jurors in the case, says he couldn’t believe the news. Kronz
says the jurors took their job seriously and spent a lot of time trying to come up with an adequate punishment for CSC, which they believed was
clearly in the wrong. During the trial, everyone in the courtroom knew about the damage cap except the jurors, who only learned of it after
they announced their verdict, making their deliberations seem like a charade, says Kronz.
Click to expand...
yea tort reform and justice in Texas!

The nursing home gets a free ride and can continue its bad practices. So do large corporations.
 
Tort reform is good for the corporations and businesses that do not want to pay for their mistakes or play by the law. Don't be a young person and get injured or have medical malpractice done on you here in Texas.

Most folks have to get lawyers on a contingency basis. If the penalties are small for egregious behavior that cause harm good luck on finding an attorney.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Another great example; Vioxx. Merck didn't turn over some bad data to the FDA. If not for a contingency fee structure, how do you think most plaintiffs would fare against the legal team of a $10B/year company?
 
thanx guys, keep up the good work!

thanx, guys. Keep the open discourse up, whether it be pro- or anti- litigation.

I'll get back to it later. Best regards.

--John
 
Free market capitalism mandates only one thing...profits. If a capitalist can get away with exploiting a worker or selling shoddy products, o well.

Government, as expressed by the people, limits the power of capitalits to explot workers.

The legal system takes care of shoddy products.

WildletsgetoureconomicsclearandconsistentAlaska
 
After listening to a couple of neighbors involved in lawsuits against companies for injuries due to negligence, I'm of the opinion that lawyers seek to convince clients that "punitive" awards should be based on the amount of revenue the company earns, regardless of the proportion of damage done to the plaintiff. Worse is that some people don't feel any remorse about "soaking" a business with claims for millions of dollars in damages that far exceed the actual injuries and/or potential risks.

Case in point - my neighbor witnessed the following at a large grocery chain store; Male customer gets a bottle of cooking oil from shelf in passing, screws up and misses his handheld basket, bottle breaks on the floor. He turns around, gets another bottle, then turns around again, walking through the spilled oil mess he created. He slips and falls (doh!). He breaks his right pinky finger and sustains a 3-stitch cut on his right forearm. That's it. In his suit against the chain, he's asking for $250,000 to cover "pain and suffering" plus medical costs and demanding $27 million in punitive damages. :confused:

The punitive damage claim is based on the earnings of the store chain and is no where near proportional to the damage caused and negligent culpability. Even if the store had failed to clean up the mess in a timely manner, based on the injury suffered, a claim of gross negligence should not exceed about 10 times the medical injury. I should note that in cases where a company seeks to cover up for a bad decision/design and seeks to make litigation too costly for the plaintiff, punitive damages should be much higher.
 
keep on adding your thoughts

where it be pro- or anti- product litigation (I'm not talking about IP, divorce, etc. matters, here BTW).

I'll add in later.--John
 
Case in point - my neighbor witnessed the following at a large grocery chain store; Male customer gets a bottle of cooking oil from shelf in passing, screws up and misses his handheld basket, bottle breaks on the floor. He turns around, gets another bottle, then turns around again, walking through the spilled oil mess he created. He slips and falls (doh!). He breaks his right pinky finger and sustains a 3-stitch cut on his right forearm. That's it. In his suit against the chain, he's asking for $250,000 to cover "pain and suffering" plus medical costs and demanding $27 million in punitive damages.
Click to expand...

How much has he settled for or been awarded? You can ask for anything in a suit. Doent' mean that you will get awarded that. Basically the Plaintiffs lawyer would prefer to settle out of court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top