Is there really such a thing as a "frivolous lawsuit"?

[MrCoffee]

Do you think that frivolous lawsuits exist and are a problem for the American legal system?

[AngryAmish]

1. There is, and insurance companies are guilty of most of them

Delay, deny, defend

This is the insurance company's motto (actually, this was an insurance company's actual motto until it leaked).

[MrCoffee]

2. i like your style

[ThomCat]

3. Absolutely! It seems like it's the corporations that are responsible

for most frivolous law suits. They've got the legal staff to file all those suits, and they profit from abusing the legal system.

They shut down smaller competitors, whistleblowers, and any organization that threatens their reputation by bleeding them through their legal bills.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

4. Yes -

May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph’s lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit.

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station’s “whimsical tiger logo” with Kellogg’s mascot, “Tony the Tiger.” It didn’t matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg’s “Tony.”

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn’t doing him much good during the ten years he’s serving for armed robbery.

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer’s large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like “cement blocks” hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. What do 5 out of 7 of thsoe cases have in common?

And me thinks there's more to those other two than what you've reported.

[Deep13]

10. My initial impression on these examples.

"May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph’s lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit."

Proving that the injuction is necessary to prevent irreperable harm might be difficult. Otherwise, it is a run-of-the-mill product liability question. The real issue is whether the plaintiff can prove damage. Not frivolous.

I'm basing my impressions solely on the statements in the previous post.

"In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame."

Lethal force may not be used to protect business assets. This case is completely justified and in fact succeeded. Consequently, it cannot be frivolous.

"In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court."

Breach of warranty? False advertising? It may have been dismissed, but it does not strike me as frivolous.

"In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station’s “whimsical tiger logo” with Kellogg’s mascot, “Tony the Tiger.” It didn’t matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg’s “Tony.”"

Who can make heads or striped tails of trademark law? If they are both tigers, then it probably is not frivolous even if they lost the case. I don't know that prior use is a conclusive defense to this sort of thing. Not my field.

"In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn’t doing him much good during the ten years he’s serving for armed robbery."

He won, therefore, not frivolous. I should note that he may have had a valid claim that was unrelated to his subsequent criminal offense.

"In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out."

That's frivolous. Who gets awarded the sanctions? Brock the plaintiff or Brock the defendant?

"In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer’s large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like “cement blocks” hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied."

Could not prove his case. Unless he had no evidence at all of a neck injury then it is a losing case, but not frivolous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Yes, but they are almost always thrown out of court if filed

Most lawyers don't take a case that doesn't have at least a smidgen of merit--the threat of being sanctioned and knocked for attorney's fees is too great.

People got all worked up after hearing about the McDonald's coffee suit, but the fact of the matter remains the whole "frivilous lawsuit epidemic" is a fiction created by mostly corporate special interests who want to restrict the average guy's legal rights. Don't read much into it, unless you are one to take the insurance industry at their word.

[Deep13]

8. McDonald's coffee suit was successful and, therefore, not frivolous. nt

[AllegroRondo]

9. We studied that case in my Business Law class

it most certainly was not frivolous. A quick look at the details of the case is enough.

[Deep13]

7. A frivolous pleading or motion is one that has no possibility of success...

...based on the law or a good faith attempt to change the law.

If a lawsuit succeeds, by definition it cannot be frivolous.

[catmandu57]

11. The recent one

where the guy sued the dry cleaner for millions after refusing a settlement that certainly was frivolous.

[cuke]

13. No, it wasn't frivolous

There were genuine legal issues in that case. Petty, yes - Frivolous, no

[huskerlaw]

12. Of course there is

But they're relatively rare. It's just that the more frivolous they are, the more airtime they get.

When you think about the hundreds of thousands of lawsuits that are filed in this country every year, only a very small percentage are truly frivolous. They're NOT the reason insurance is so high. That's just what the people who are really to blame want you to believe.

[madinmaryland]

14. Any lawsuit filed by a republican?

[Inchworm]

15. I was on a jury once where a 98 year old man died

I guess the family had already tried suing other doctors and came up blank. The case I was on was a doctor that had done (forget term now) one of those operations with a small hole and they ram a camera in belly.

This doctor did the operation when the man was 92. The family brought this doc to court because his operation killed the man. Stupid thing was they said the operation caused infection. He had no infection for most of the years between death and operation.

I think it was greed and the willingness to step on anyone's neck for money.

Not so sure if that means frivolous.

:hi:

[redqueen]

16. Remember that guy who sued over his pants?

Yeah, I think there are definitely frivolous lawsuits. Don't think it's as much of a problem as some make it out to be, though.