More on the civil justice system

If the civil justice system wasn't so important to keep corporations from knowingly killing people, it wouldn't be attacked so much. For those of you who lost it in this poorly formatted blog, Political Junkette had an insightful, incisive post about the medical malpractice bill passed by the U.S. House.

Go read it, and then come back.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, you're back. (I know some of you never left, can't follow instructions can you?)

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with Junkette's assessment. Here's two other points of outrage to consider.

1. The rhetoric about the bill is stopping FRIVOLOUS suits. Ok, stop frivolous suits. How does limiting recovery for wrongful death, paralysis, disfigurement, impotence, etc at $250,000 have anything to do with frivolous suits?

Perversely, it only affects the most meritorious suits! What it does do is limit the liability of insurers. I wish we could question R members of Congress from the back mic, like in the Texas lege. I'd love to ask one of 'em if they thought $250,000 max would be fair compensation for the negligent death of one of their kids. Consider that Bush's salary is $400,000 a year. Many of the Chamber lobbyists working for the bill make $250,000 a year easy. That's the value of human life to the party of evangelical Christians?

2. If the bill was really about helping doctors with high insurance premiums, why didn't it have any provision to require a rate rollback from the insurance companies, and why did it give liability protection to the drug industry, which most recently killed 55,000 Americans?

Could it be -- as shocking as the cliched gambling in a Moroccan casino -- that this Congress is as full as corporate whores as the Texas Legislature?

Why do we lose these fights? Because we lost the PR war over the civil justice system long ago. It's defined in popular culture and popular opinion not by its benefits to victims and society at large, but by its flaws and excesses. Sometimes those flaws and excesses -- frivolous suits for instance -- aren't even real, as this LAT piece shows.

Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway
Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system.

Merv Grazinski set his Winnebago on cruise control, slid away from the wheel and went back to fix a cup of coffee.

You can guess what happened next: The rudderless, driverless Winnebago crashed.

Grazinski blamed the manufacturer for not warning against such a maneuver in the owner's manual. He sued and won $1.75 million.

His jackpot would seem to erase any doubt that the legal system has lost its mind. Indeed, the Grazinski case has been cited often as evidence of the need to limit lawsuits and jury awards.

There's just one problem: The story is a complete fabrication.

[...]

Besides the Grazinski saga, there's the mythical case of Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pa., who got into an argument with her boyfriend in a restaurant, threw a drink at him and then broke her tailbone when she slipped on the wet spot on the floor. Naturally, Carson sued — and won $113,500.

Then there's Kara Walton, a Delaware woman so eager to avoid a $3.50 cover charge that she tried sneaking into a nightclub through a bathroom window but fell and lost a couple of teeth. Walton sued and won $12,000 plus payment of dental bills.

A database search shows the Grazinski, Carson and Walton tales have been cited as true by a wide range of media outlets, including CNN; U.S. News & World Report; the American Spectator; the Oakland Tribune; the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram; the Deseret News of Salt Lake City; the Akron Beacon-Journal; the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record; and the Augusta, Ga., Chronicle.

Yeah, besides the made up cases, people do sometimes file stupid stuff, but it gets dismissed. That's the way the system works. Keep the courthouse doors open for everyone, but throw the nuts out before it gets to a trial.

And, for the final outrage of this rant -- just wait until the medical malpractice bill reaches the Senate -- wonder how this guy will vote?