Frivolous Lawsuits Hurt Our Country

Frivolous Lawsuits

The author of this report is charged with comparing and contrasting two example lawsuits that many people would deem frivolous. One of the cases relates to a man that apparently thought that the Winnebago motor homes could drive and steer themselves on par with the self-driven Google cars that are coming out just now in 2015. The other case pertains to a man that literally sued for $54 million because a dry cleaner lost a pair of his pants and they had the audacity to say that "satisfaction was guaranteed." Both cases are an abomination of justice, ranging from the laws that were used to bring them, the judges that allowed them to be heard, the insipid lawyers that helped their "plaintiffs" bring their case and the amount of time it took to bring resolution to any of the matters in question. While the civil court system and the laws that justify lawsuits in the first place have their place, the fact that these court cases proceeded in the first place, let alone the fact that one of them was won by the plaintiff, is a huge condemnation on the "justice system" that allowed the cases to be brought and/or won in the first place.

Facts of the Cases

The first case was the aforementioned "self-driving" Winnebago. Before getting to that, this man apparently won the dubious honor of willing a "Stella Award" for being the most frivolous and ridiculous case of the year, apparently 2001 in this case. Indeed, Stella Liebeck is the woman who bought hot coffee at McDonald's, proceeded to put the cup of hot coffee between her legs and then accidentally squeeze the cup hard enough that the lid popped off and her thighs were scalded with coffee. While the act itself was a simple accident and the lawsuit was the problem, the winner of the 2002 Stella Award was obtuse both because of the lawsuit being brought (AND WON) in the first place but also because of the act that led to the lawsuit being brought.

Merv Grazinski was apparently well-off enough that he was able to buy a brand new Winnebago. On his first trip home, he apparently was not smart enough to realize that the cruise control on a car or truck (or motor home in this case), only regulates speed. It has no effect on direction, wind, whether there are cars or children in the way and so forth. In any event, this man (if we can call him that), put the Winnie on cruise control and left the driver's seat to make a cup of coffee. As would be predicted by anyone with nominal brain stem activity, the Winnie left the road, crashed and overturned. The man sued and $1.75 million (and Winnies do not cost remotely that much) in ADDITION to getting a brand new Winnebago that he can crash and abuse. Further, Winnebago had to change their manual to explain that the person driving the Winnie should never leave the driver's seat while the Winnebago is in operation.

As noted before, the other silly lawsuit (but also sad, in many respects) was the case of the man (a judge, no less) who sued a dry cleaner in Washington DC. In that case, the man (named Pearson) sued a pair of South Korean dry cleaners to the tune of $67 million for losing (allegedly) a pair of pants. The two South Korean immigrants cited a loss of revenue and emotional strain from defending the lawsuit. They ended up having to sell the shop that was the site of the "terrible" transgression as well as one other shop. The attorney for the Chungs, a person by the name of Manning, was quoted as saying "this is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small business." Soo Chung, the wife, and her husband Jin Nam Chung faced a litigation period of roughly two years as they fought the case.

The aforementioned judged had gone there and alleged that a pair of pants was lost. He then sued for the already-mentioned $67 million before later lowering the amount to $54 million. He sued, he says, because the loss of the pants in concert with the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" signs meant that the Chungs were engaging in fraud because they either did not intend to deliver on their promises or they simply failed to do so. The case went to trial in June of 2007 and the judge found in favor of the Chungs. However, being the reprobate loser he is, Mr. Pearson appealed the decision. However, the Chungs had amassed $100,000 in legal expenses, although fundraisers and assistance from others paid that off. Even with the offset, they lost two of their three stores, as mentioned before. Pearson was asked to explain himself but refused to do so via a lack of comment to the Associated Press.

Issues in the Cases

When it comes to the Merv vs. The Winnie case, that surely came down to what the manual for the Winnebago said. As already noted, this case was more than a decade ago and self-driving vehicles are just now coming to the forefront of the market in the form of Google doing it. As such, the Winnie case surely came down to what the manual and represented vs. what an "average" person should do, should not do and why. The author of this report would compare it to the hair dryer in the bathtub thing. Even if a hair dryer manufacturer said in their documentation that it was alright to use their product while they stood in or near a pool of water, no one in their right mind would do so because it could literally get them killed. As such, perhaps Winnebago presented some formulation of "set it and forget it" but anyone with driver's education training should know the whole "10 and 2" and "don't leave the driver seat when the car is in motion" part of the lesson. It sounds like a given…but apparently that was not the case with Mr. Merv. The author of this report really wanted to know if Winnebago actually represented that the car could drive itself or if Merv just inferred that on her own. Indeed, it was apparently made clear from the court case details as listed on the Houston Chronicle website that Merv apparently did not see a notation that the Winnebago could not drive itself and thus assume it would (Casey, 2015).

If it were even possible, the issues in the dry cleaner case are even worse. The issues are basic but were taken to absolutely stupid lengths. The issue is, in a word, puffery. There is also the idea of what damages could and should be in a given case. In short, unless there is intentional, malicious and wanton depravity by a business person or entity (in which case punitive damages would come into play), the damages that can be rendered are typically limited to what is lost by the plaintiff. In this case, that was a pair of pants…if that. Anyhow, as far as puffery goes, that is all the Chungs were doing when they said "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" means that nothing could or would ever go wrong knows nothing about life or business and they are indeed dumber than Merv…if that is possible. In any event, any sane person or business would just agree that the pants would be replaced at either depreciated or replacement value. A wise business would do the latter even though courts might side with the former. Anyhow, the "strict" law in Washington DC is apparently too strict because the case was allowed to take two years, involved six figures, a judge as a plaintiff and the entire case should have taken less than five minutes to try and hear. The judge who brought the case should be disbarred for disgracing his profession and the judge who allowed the case to drag on like it did should be removed AND disbarred for much the same reason. Anyhow, the Chungs were just talking up their business and they were apparently trying to say that they would resolve any complaints in addition to providing same-day service for anyone that wanted it. That does not mean that someone can come in five minutes after closing and demand same day service. It also does not mean that a shirt drenched in permanent ink is going to be cleanable. Unless the Chungs purposefully misrepresented their products, their services and/or their intentions, there is absolutely no case against them and the fact that took two years to "figure that out" is an absolute disgrace (Nolo, 2015).

Laws That Apply

When it comes to the Winnie case with Merv, there are a few laws that apply. Even with the apparently joke of an "omission" about the massive motorhome not being able to drive itself, Winnebago does have a burden to make sure to explain how their people should and should not use their vehicles. However, there should obviously be some constraint to this because there is no end to the amount of dumb things that some people will do. For example, they should explain how to change a flat tire or how to open the door. However, to suggest that they have to explain every dumb thing to not do is a bit much. There is such a thing as a sin by omission, but that clearly was not the issue here. However, it is something that could come up in other cases. Basically, whatever "reasonably" should be included in the manual should be there. Anything else is almost certainly unnecessary but a good umbrella insurance policy against lawsuits is a good idea…just ask Winnebago (Boggs, 2015).

As for the case with the missing pants, the Chungs do technically have an ethical and business-person burden to try and make things right if they make a mistake. As noted before, a common way to address a missing pair of pants would be to not charge the customer and pay them their loss. For example, if the customer paid $5 and the pants were worth $20, they could issue a refund/credit of $25-30 and that would be the end of it. The Chungs are not ogligated to do that but it is the right thing to do. The Chungs and Pearson ended up doing what so many people do and that is they go to court. However, even in the worst and nastiest of circumstances, there is no way it should have come to the levels that it did short of their being physical violence, defamation or some other accompanying crime that justifies the lawsuit. This should have been a small claims case (if that) and it should have taken less than ten minutes even the Chungs and/or Pearson were unwilling to budge (and one of them surely would have…but probably the Chungs, obviously). Basically, the Chungs and Pearson could have worked things out in the streets or they could go to court and have an arbitrator (a judge) work it out for them…that's the gist of it (Nolo, 2015)

The Decisions

As noted before, the Winnebago case was a win for Merv, as dumb as she was. In the case of the Chungs, they won the case but lost the war in many ways. The Chung decision was the right one. However, the case should have been dismissed on the amount alone from the very onset. Even if it went to trial, this should have happened quickly and it should have been decided quickly. There should have been a sanction of some sort against the judge who brought the action because he should surely know better than to waste the court's time. He was not entitled to $100, let alone tens of millions of dollars, and he of all people should know that. As for the Winnebago case, it baffles the mind how any judge or jury could reach the decision that was reached. The author of this report would have to read the transcript of the trial and, hopefully, the deliberation notes so as to figure out how those people possibly came to any positive decision for Merv and then ostensibly lopped on punitive damages on top of that to boot.

Ethical Issues in the Case

As already noted, there are so many people and entities in these two situations that should be given life training, if not fired from their jobs. Again, the fact that the Chungs were robbed (even if temporarily) of $100,000 over a ridiculous case is an indictment of the silly little man who brought the case and the court case system that allowed that matter to stretch on as long as it did and in the ways that it did. That case…NEVER…should have gone to trial. If the workings of the Washington DC court and/or the verbiage of the consumer laws in question justify or allow for what happened in that case, that is absolutely preposterous and the only people that should be getting damages is the Chungs and it should come out of Pearson's pocket. The legislators in that area should also rework the law so as to regulate what cases can be brought before the court. There needs to be a "relief valve" system whereby cases that are clearly over the top and ridiculous can be remanded to the proper court or, if they are truly stupid and baseless, dismissed. Mandatory minimum sentences for crimes is a good related example (O'Mara, 2015).

Also as noted before, Pearson should be fired (or removed via recall…whatever the case may be) and also disbarred from practicing law for filing that case, based on the amount and the details of the case, anywhere other than small claims court. A pair of pants, to be brutally honest, is a very stupid thing to sue over. Even people would be prone to sue based on "principle" would probably cut their losses and just use a different dry cleaner. Perhaps they'll try to get a credit from the dry cleaner that wronged them and perhaps they'll get somewhere with that. Regardless, there are more important things and cases that should be in the court system and Pearson is lucky that what he did is not a criminally punishable offense because he would be the poster boy for such a rule or directive.

As for the ethics of the Winnebago case, that company should not have to pay for the theoretical or actual stupidity of any or all of its customers. For example, Aqua Net should not be sued if someone is in a small bathroom, someone sprays a bunch of hair spray in their hair and then they cremate themselves by going to light a cigarette. Anyone with intelligence and life knowledge knows that hair spray is flammable and thus lighting a match in an enclosed area with flammable gas can get someone killed or in a very bad way, at least. Now, if the manual said that the Winnebago could drive itself (even in jest), then one could make a theoretical case. However, even that could be construed as less than serious and/or puffery and thus should not be taken seriously.

The legal and ethical issues case are separate in some instances but they are intertwined in other instances. For example, just because Pearson (the dry cleaner defendant) CAN bring a case such as he did (and apparently he had that right), does not mean he could or should. Sometimes, it comes down to personal preference and how important the matter is to someone. For example, most people might shrug off suing in small claims court over a pair of pants while others might try to make a point if they feel the dry cleaner is not ethical or right in what they did. Even so, both of these cases have at least some elements of situations and premises that are absolutely mind-bending and ridiculous to even fathom. The fact that Merv was given a DIME of money, let alone more than a million on top of a replacement car that she can abuse and wreck, is a travesty of justice and any judge or juror that was involved in that decision needs to get out of the gene pool. Not to compare the acts involved, but that decision make the OJ Simpson case look tame in terms of how obtuse it was. At least in that case, there was the racist cop Fuhrman, the fairly incompetent prosecutorial team and the somewhat entertaining (albeit soulless, given OJ's guilt…at least in civil court) antics of Johnny Cochran.