Things we have to do without because of lawyers.

Zeb_Carter

.-- - ..-.
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
20,584
August 09, 2006

Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

By John Stossel

Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We'd be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that's a myth. It's easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious -- but just as real -- are the things we'd all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

Monsanto once developed a substitute for asbestos -- a new fire-resistant form of insulation that might save thousands of lives. But Monsanto decided not to sell it for fear of liability. Richard F. Mahoney, the CEO at the time, said, "There may well have been a safe, effective asbestos replacement on the market, and now there isn't."

Why do we have to worry about shortages of flu vaccine? Because only a handful of companies still make it. And why is that? Because when you vaccinate millions of people, some get sick and sue. Between 1980 and 1986, personal-injury lawyers demanded billions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers. That scared many American drug companies out of the business.

In 1986, Congress stepped in. To help curb the lawsuits that discouraged vaccine production, the government established a fund called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It would pay victims' families directly so they wouldn't have to hire lawyers and suffer the delays of litigation. This was supposed to entice vaccine makers back into production, but drug companies were still leery, fearing that plaintiffs' lawyers would sue them anyway.

They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children's vaccines. Plaintiffs' lawyers jumped on scaremongers' claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Even when new vaccines are discovered, drug companies are sometimes afraid to sell them. The FDA has approved a vaccine against Lyme disease. Want some? Forget about it. No company wants to take the risk.

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

After scientifically groundless lawsuits against breast-implant makers bankrupted Dow Corning, Japanese silicone makers stopped producing a pain-reducing silicone coating for hypodermic needles. A company director said, "We're sure our product is safe, but we don't want to risk a lawsuit."

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won't sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can't buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, "Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged."

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America's peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion -- like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?
 
I like to see journalists standing up for the small guys like Monsanto :rolleyes: -the genetically altered food giant - busy making our world safer. Oh yeah, there could have been a safe alternative to asbestos. Or, then again, there could have been a product that caused even more cancer and other health problems. If they didn't take it to market - there were serious problems and their lawyers said knock it off or you'll get your asses sued!

Or like Union Carbide. All those nasty legal 'sharks' who tried to get Union Carbide to pay something after they wiped out a village in India :mad: . Remember Bopal? Nah, it was far away and not populated by 'americans'.

The reality is that these big companies are the ones preying on the average citizen. If lawyers cause them to think twice about introducing new potentially extremely harmful substances into our bodies and environment - more power to them!
 
Straight-8 said:
I like to see journalists standing up for the small guys like Monsanto :rolleyes: -the genetically altered food giant - busy making our world safer. Oh yeah, there could have been a safe alternative to asbestos. Or, then again, there could have been a product that caused even more cancer and other health problems. If they didn't take it to market - there were serious problems and their lawyers said knock it off or you'll get your asses sued!

Or like Union Carbide. All those nasty legal 'sharks' who tried to get Union Carbide to pay something after they wiped out a village in India :mad: . Remember Bopal? Nah, it was far away and not populated by 'americans'.

The reality is that these big companies are the ones preying on the average citizen. If lawyers cause them to think twice about introducing new potentially extremely harmful substances into our bodies and environment - more power to them!
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

So I have a fantastic new product, but because most people don't, I will repeat that loud and clear, DON'T read directions I won't produce the product and put it on the market because if you don't use it according to the direction you could, will, be hurt, become sick, be maimed for life and one lawsuit would, even though I would win in the end, ruin me finacially, emotionally. So now the human race will have to do without my product, which by the way, would have cured cancer.
 
They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children's vaccines. Plaintiffs' lawyers jumped on scaremongers' claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Thimerosal has now been taken out of all new vaccines and with good reason. Linked to autism or not, MERCURY introduced into a child's young system is NOT a good idea. :rolleyes: Mercury can be toxic and you're talking about mainlining it into 2 month olds... hello?! I don't know what brainiac thought that one up... oh wait, some big drug company who decided that using mercury as a preservative was CHEAP... could they have used a safer ingredient? Yep. They're doing it now. Would their costs have increased? Yep. Could they have circumvented the lawsuits altogether by doing the SAFER thing FIRST? Yep. Did they? Nope. Why? Because they don't change UNLESS THEY GET CAUGHT. They will do the cheapest, most cost effective thing, regardless of the possibility of harm. Thank god for personal injury lawyers.

Sincerely, Selena Brockovich.
 
Last edited:
Here is something else we do without thanks to personal injury lawyers-governmental regulation of all sectors of business.

You can't have it both ways, Zeb. The free market model says that market forces as expressed in civil tort lawsuits are the best way to keep consumers safe while letting business thrive. The alternative is direct gov't regulation, and no pro-business forum troll wants that.

So, congratulations Zeb; you're a socialist!
 
Oblimo said:
Here is something else we do without thanks to personal injury lawyers-governmental regulation of all sectors of business.

You can't have it both ways, Zeb. The free market model says that market forces as expressed in civil tort lawsuits are the best way to keep consumers safe while letting business thrive. The alternative is direct gov't regulation, and no pro-business forum troll wants that.

So, congratulations Zeb; you're a socialist!
I never said I wanted it both ways.

As for being a socialist, you don't know me well enough to say that.
 
Svenskaflicka said:
I knew there was a reason why I liked you, Zeb! :kiss:
Gee thanks, but I'm not a socialist, I hope that doesn't dash you feeling for me sweetheart. :kiss:
 
Svenskaflicka said:
You could have gotten laid Zeb.

Why do you think most guys joined the anti-war movement in the 60's??

But seriously ( he said, unable to resist feeding the trolls ) Republicans want de-regulation and Tort Reform (read tort abolishment).

Market Forces, they say, would cause self regulation.

So the company that kills the fewest of its customers will succeed.
 
Ted-E-Bare said:
You could have gotten laid Zeb.

Why do you think most guys joined the anti-war movement in the 60's??

But seriously ( he said, unable to resist feeding the trolls ) Republicans want de-regulation and Tort Reform (read tort abolishment).

Market Forces, they say, would cause self regulation.

So the company that kills the fewest of its customers will succeed.
What can I say Ted, it probably would have been a good lay too. But being a devoted and dedicated husband it would have all been for nought.

Oh I'm not a Republican either. :)
 
I thank God for personal injury lawyers. If not for them, we wouldn't have those pages of warning in instruction manuals that tell us not to stand up on rolling desk chairs or use electric drills to clean our ears.

And who'd protect us against that scalding hot McDonald's coffee or the human fingers in Wendy's chile?

There's a simple solution to frivolous product liability lawsuits that I think they use in the UK. If you sue someone and lose, you have to pay the court costs. In the US, if you sue and lose, it costs you nothing. Tort lawyers typically get 30% of whatever damages the court awards, so theyt have nothing to lose and everything to gain by suing everything in sight.
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
And who'd protect us against that scalding hot McDonald's coffee or the human fingers in Wendy's chile?

There's a simple solution to frivolous product liability lawsuits that I think they use in the UK. If you sue someone and lose, you have to pay the court costs. In the US, if you sue and lose, it costs you nothing. Tort lawyers typically get 30% of whatever damages the court awards, so theyt have nothing to lose and everything to gain by suing everything in sight.

Personally, I'm all in favour of fewer fingers in my chili! And Fords that don't explode into flames on impact so that the manufacturer can save $2 per car!

I agree that the reasonable use of 'costs' as a factor in litigation can be a significant control on both sides...provided, of course, that the unequal economic power of the two parties is factored into the equation. It is not uncommon, in the jurisdictions where costs are used as you suggest, for a company/insurer to try and run costs up to make the prospect of losing the litigation prohibitively risky and expensive to the average plaintiff. There are damn few 'sure things' out there.

And tort lawyers have a lot to lose. They may work on a case for years and pay thousands for expert reports. They have an office to run. Imagine that you got to work for a year, buying your tools, paying for your overhead and spending money as usual and then find out that there is no payday at the end. Ouch!
 
Ted-E-Bare said:
But seriously ( he said, unable to resist feeding the trolls ) Republicans want de-regulation and Tort Reform (read tort abolishment).
Tort reform doesn't mean tort abolishment to all Republicans, just the dumb ones. :)

For those Republicans who actually understand free market theory, tort reform means a cap on jury-awarded punitive damages and higher barriers to class action litigation -- with which, even as a liberal-leaning attorney, I have trouble disagreeing.
Market Forces, they say, would cause self regulation. So the company that kills the fewest of its customers will succeed.
Ah, but tort law, in some form or fashion, is a market force, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism boils down to this: there is only one legitimate governmental purpose, only one role that the government should play, and that's to guarantee unfetterred equal flow of information. Free market forces only work if the consumer can know what's going on in the market. So, if Anachro-Cola company sells soda that kills people, living consumers will find out about it, and stop buying Anachro-Cola. If, on the other hand, there is no government to make sure that information can travel unfetterred, Anachro-Cola can lie, quash reports, or simply start selling their soda in the next enclave over once everyone is dead.

This would be a fine theory, if capitalism were possible without corporate law, and it's not, so anachro-capitalism is nonsensical gibberish--but that's beside the point. The point is that actions in tort are one of the fingers of the Invisible Hand (the middle one). Anarcho-Cola goes out of business because it's sued and that suit is made part of the public record.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
In the US, if you sue and lose, it costs you nothing.
This is a grave misconception.

In the US, if you sue and lose because your case was frivolous, you not only pay the other side's costs, you can get a hefty fine from the government, your lawyer can get disbarred or even thrown in jail.
Tort lawyers typically get 30% of whatever damages the court awards, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by suing everything in sight.

For the furthering of your legal education, my dear doctor, I present to you Rule 11, which (thank God) has no relation to good ol' Rule 34. All states have versions of Rule 11 in their civil pro jurisprudence, too; many of them much harsher.
 
Now what the large drug companies could really use would be free license to experiment on the population free from government oversight or legal ramifications. Something nifty like, say, reversing the burden of proof, so that people harmed by their products would have to prove that the product was dangerous after it affected them instead of the company doing studies to ensure that the product was safe before putting it on the market. Hey, and maybe they could even eliminate the need to prove that it works at all! That would be even handier.

Unfortunately, it's only the (over a billion dollars yearly) herbal and supplements industry that has those advantages, thanks to the ironically named Dietary Supplement Education and Health Act (1994). If you've got a product that doesn't work or isn't safe, you're still fine to bring it to market so long as you call it a supplement and are willing to be a little inventive with the wording describing what it does. By the time the FDA or the population at large can summon the resources to prove that it's dangerous, you'll be long gone - and the great news is that if it is not dangerous but merely worthless, you can sell it for the rest of your life.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
What can I say Ted, it probably would have been a good lay too. But being a devoted and dedicated husband it would have all been for nought.

Oh I'm not a Republican either. :)

"Probably"? PROBABLY??? :catroar: :catroar: :catroar:
 
Svenskaflicka said:
"Probably"? PROBABLY??? :catroar: :catroar: :catroar:
Oh, I'm sure it would have been good sweetheart :catroar: ....I'm just depressed as I won't be able to partake of your sensual pleasures. :(
 
wazhazhe said:
I can't believe you said that. ;)
Well, as I have no first hand knowledge that the event is pleasurable with the mentioned young lady, I can only speculate as to the probability that it would be. :p

But as I have said in prior posts, I am a faithful married man. :eek:
 
Ted-E-Bare said:
You could have gotten laid Zeb.

Why do you think most guys joined the anti-war movement in the 60's??
You do, of course, realize you just explained about 75% of the venemous dogpiling that occures on this forum?
 
Back
Top