The world today is full of many injustices, which puts the main question ho how people are able to deal with them. Taking the responsibility of restoring justice in own hands will through back to society into a state of chaos. In that regard, the ability to restore justice through lawsuits can be seen as the only way possible to protect people. The examples showing how people protected themselves through lawsuits are numerous, and accordingly many exceptions of abuse can be only seen as a confirmation of the rule rather than the other way around. In that regard, any person who believes that there was injustice, harm, or violation of rights taken or taking place against him/her, has the right to file a lawsuit for his complaints to be fulfilled and the justice restored.
Although the right to file a lawsuit is a way of protection of people’s basic rights, it is nevertheless, an expanding area of abuse through which people exploit loopholes in the law to acquire financial gains. In that regard, many laws and regulations become so ridiculous to little details just to protect themselves from such lawsuits. It should be noted that many examples of lawsuits were dropped off, but there are also examples of abuses of the right to file lawsuits, that were successful. The Stella Awards, a name was given to outrageous lawsuits named after Stella Liebeck, who won a case against McDonald’s for spilling hot coffee onto her lap and was awarded $2.9 million for damages, is exemplary of such cases. (“Stella Awards”) Taking rather tragic examples of such lawsuits, a fire in a concert which resulted in a hundred people killed and injured, led to that lawyers filing lawsuits against the company that promoted the concert. The total money settlement reached was $70 million, including defendants such as The Home Depot, a manufacturer of insulation material, a pyrotechnics maker and a TV station whose cameraman was accused of blocking an exit while filming the fire. (Tucker)
Lawsuits against medical malpractice are an area that can be controversial due to the contradictive nature of such lawsuits. On the one hand, the consequences of such malpractices can be fatal and the amount of money awarded in such cases cannot measure the loss of a human being. On the other hand, the sums that are paid sometimes reflect the desire of people to take advantage of such cases, rather than going after punishing the responsible and demanding reforms in the health care system. In that regard, the amount of $40,000,000 in damages for a suspicion that someone did not receive proper medical treatment is excessive, because it will not return that victim back to life and on the other hand, in such cases, the doctors will always be held responsible which might lead to their refusal to work with seriously ill patients preferring to work in “safer” areas.
Accordingly, there should be a limit put on the amount that can be awarded for different cases of medical malpractice. It should be noted that such cases are twofold, where if hospitals were awarding the sums that are demanded every time such practice occurs, they will have to compensate these sums from other resources, otherwise, there will be no one to work in areas of high risks. Accordingly, either such medical areas will be reduced or will be too expensive to afford. Additionally, such cases are hard to prove and require special expertise, where hospitals sometimes prefer to settle even if they are aware that there was no malpractice taking place. In that regard, limiting the amount of the award might prevent people from going into long legal battles just for the sake of earning money.
When asking the aforementioned questions to my father, my grandfather and my friend’s mother, the answers were seemingly corresponding to my arguments although with minor differences. My father and my friend’s mother agreed that the right to file lawsuits can be seen as a protection, and a “representation of freedom”, explaining that without such right we would not have been among the most developed countries in the world. My grandfather added that such right forces any possible opponent to revise his/her actions, and always give a second thought before conducting any step. Regarding the possible abuse, my father and my friend’s mother stated that these abuse possibilities are rare and that they are popular because they are seldom practiced. They added that the long term of such legal battles, the expenses and the possibility of losing prevents most people from utilizing such possibilities. My grandfather’s argument was that major corporations and organizations protect themselves to the degree that some of their rules and laws are mostly for little children, citing an example of an instruction manual that obviously was composed for preventing possible abuse from customers.
Regarding, medical malpractice, my father and my friend’s mother agreed that some cases were excessive, acknowledging that it is not about the money. They also concluded that there should be limits on the amounts of the money awarded, so it should be compensated for the loss, rather than a jackpot, with the emphasis on preventing such practices in the future. My grandfather, however, stated that the health industry is among the most expensive, where such compensation will not affect the. Accordingly, he considered that high compensations should serve as lessons after which they will check the qualifications of their doctors and their personnel. I mostly, agree with their arguments, although I think that any rule has an exception that is hard to generalize. In that regard, taking different positions, such as the patient, the doctor or the relatives of the victim, the opinion might change drastically. Thus, the practice of such lawsuits should be based on a thorough examination of all the circumstances.
Works Cited
“Stella Awards”. 2009. This is True.Inc.
Tucker, Eric. “Clear Channel, Fire Victims Ok $22m Deal”. 2008. USA Today.