Summary
There is certainly a compelling argument contained within both Mr. Alpert's analysis and Mr. Olson original article. That is as a nation we must take more personal responsibility for our actions. We as attorney's should also have more responsibility to review and file claims that are not the result of individual irresponsibility.
Analysis
Tort reform has long been a goal long before Dan Quayle. We all recognize that private and commercial auto insurance, malpractice and other liability settlements raise the cost of doing business. In fact such suits may result in corporate bankruptcies and higher unemployment rates.
Lets look at some of those legal filings. Possible one of the most infamous in recent memory is the lady who pulled into a McDonalds drive thru ordered hot coffee and the put in her lap. The coffee spilled and she sued and received a sizeable award. She won because she failed to exercise common sense which should have precluded bringing the case in the first place.
All of those people who smoke or smoked cigarettes, filed suit against an industry that employs thousands. Granted there is compelling evidence that smoking is bad for your health, that the companies made it easy to obtain an addicting substance, and may have hidden the known effects. However, once the effects were known and made public and the government put warnings on packages that "smoking may be harmful to your health" the issue should have been put to rest. No one can reasonably argue, although they still do that it's the tobacco companies fault that they are sick. As a smoker there is a clear choice, continue or cease. If you continue or even start at this date - after all the knowledge is available then you should be responsible for the results of your actions.
Ever wonder why there are warning labels on buckets that say caution of drowning? Someone acted in a clearly irresponsible manner and put their head in a bucket and drowned. The family sued and now we have to be told it's dangerous to put your head in a bucket.
My argument about responsibility applies to corporations. They have to act in a socially and legally responsible manner. The courts are close to being flooded by government action and shareholder suits regarding failures in risk management, compliance management and failure of fiduciary responsibility over the economic meltdown. These are actions that deserve a fair hearing in court.
A company that knowingly markets a dangerous product, that fails to test properly deserves to be taken to court if the product causes or results in serious injury or death. An airline who fails to perform inspections and complete mechanical repairs and operates to failure then they should be fined in the regulatory process, and if their negligent actions result in injury, death or property loss then they should answer to a court and jury.
However, more importantly is the jury itself. The jury needs to understand that there is a level of personal responsibility and that cars have cup holders for a reason, and putting hot coffee in your lap while driving is not McDonalds fault, or that if you started smoking after all the information came out about the harmful effects of smoking the individual is responsible not the tobacco company. If your dumb enough to put your head in a bucket full of water then your responsible for drowning.
The judiciary too must bear responsibility for allowing the frivolous to proceed to trial, and when it does find that a suit is without merit the judiciary must act to limit such actions by sanction as it did in several class action suits late 1990's early 2000's.
A little more responsibility and common sense would go a long way to reducing the backlog in our federal and state judiciary system.
