skip to content

Innovation in America

American Innovation Paralyzed by Lawsuit Threat

Looking for what to do next? Find out at the end of this article.

Higher costs are not the only way in which consumers are negatively impacted by our litigious society. The flood of lawsuits has put a damper on innovation. The threat of a lawsuit can kill the incentive a company has to invent new products, many of which are conveniences and modern-day necessities that make your life more manageable and productive. According to Jackpot Justice, “when businesses operate in a high-liability-risk environment, they respond to increased liability burdens by eliminating investments in product novelty because novel products have more uncertain safety characteristics.” Sometimes, the threat of being sued is enough for companies to keep their products off the market.

  • Fear of lawsuits also causes companies to withhold beneficial products from markets, costing jobs. Volkswagen had planned to sell a 46 miles-per-gallon, three-wheel vehicle in the United States. It had qualified for California's car-pool lanes.
     
  • This ‘green machine’ would have cost $17,000, but VW decided not to market it in the United States because of lawsuit fears.” ~ John Engler, president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, and Lawrence J. McQuillan, director of business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute and co-author of the U.S. Tort Liability Index, writing in the Detroit News in May 2008.
     
  • Volvo makes an integrated child booster seat but it will not sell it in the U.S. because of product liability concerns.

Who Wins? Ironically, It’s Not the Plaintiffs Themselves

Plaintiffs are too often the losers even when they win. When a class-action suit against the Bank of Boston was settled, $8.64 was awarded to each member of the plaintiffs’ class member. But they ended up losing money, as their lawyers charged each of them $90 in legal fees.

  • In a case against Blockbuster, the attorneys took in more $9 million in fees. The plaintiffs? Each got a coupon worth $1 off of future video rentals.
     
  • A suit against Thomson Consumer Electronics was settled when the plaintiffs’ attorneys collected $22 million while their clients received $25 to $50 rebates good for a future television purchase.
     
  • For suing Ameritech, plaintiffs’ attorneys raked in $16 million. Members of the class they represented got $5 pay phone cards.
     
  • Lawrence Schonbrun, a lawyer who’s fought excessive attorney fees, said he once had a client who “received a settlement check for 14 cents – along with four pages of Internal Revenue Service instructions on how to report the payment.”

Now What Do We Do?

Foundation for Fair Civil Justice (FFCJ) exists to bring empowering programs and education to retired Americans and Americans on fixed incomes. 

  • Please take the time to sign up for our Fairness Matters e-newsletter, which will bring you news items right to your email that tell the ongoing story about the need for legal reform by clicking here.  We don’t share your email address with anyone – that’s important to us.

  • Learn more about the bread-and-butter, common sense need for legal reform and how lawsuit abuse affects you as a retired American or American on fixed income by listening to our “Let’s Be Fair” radio commentaries, hosted by FFCJ Senior Fellow Bob Dorigo Jones by clicking here

    Bob is a bestselling author and founder of the nationally profiled “Wacky Warning Label Contest,” which annually picks the wackiest warning labels on products to underscore the absurd lengths to which American business has to go in response to the threat of lawsuits.

     
  • Finally, we hope that FFCJ programming is a good investment for your business and for America!  Please take the time to invest in our work to protect you by making a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.

Read More


| Print Article



See All News Headlines > In the Headlines

Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

08/31/09

A moment of clarity from Howard Dean, courtesy of CNS News, who took this video at the town-hall forum of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). When an angry constituent wondered why a supposedly comprehensive “reform” of the health-care system doesn’t include tort reform to lower costs of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine, Dean responds as “a doctor and a politician.” Apparently, neither has the courage to face the trial-lawyer lobby.

FFCJ Releases Exclusive “Role of the Courts” Video

08/26/09

To stimulate public discussion about the importance for state court decisions to adhere to the principle of the “rule of law”, FFCJ has produced a short video program that will be aired as regular programming starting this month on PBS.  PBS expects a minimum of 3 million viewers to watch it! “The Role of the Courts” will also be available for more than 38 million subscribers on cable starting in January.

“The Role of the Courts” features two retired state Supreme Court Justices—Harold See of Alabama (top left) and Cliff Taylor of Michigan (below left). See and Taylor briefly discuss how the judicial system was framed by the U.S. Constitution.

Obstetrics Crisis Growing In Pa.

08/16/09

(The Bulletin) The obstetrics crisis in Pennsylvania is growing. Last month, the maternity units at Brandywine Hospital near Coatesville, Chestnut Hill Hospital in the affluent Chestnut Hill section of Philadelphia and Central Montgomery Medical Center in Lansdale, all closed.

So far, 17 maternity wards have closed in Philadelphia since 1997. According to one source, the waiting period for gynecologic care for a new patient in the five-county Southeastern Pennsylvania area is six to nine months.


See All Opinions & Editorials >Opinions & Editorials

Obama’s Malpractice Lip Service

Washington Times Editorial

An exceedingly brief discussion of “malpractice reform” was the only noteworthy bone President Obama threw to Republicans in his health care speech Wednesday night. It wasn’t a serious offer of reform.

Reformers in both parties want to curb abusive lawsuits that drive medical costs through the roof. Yet Mr. Obama could not even bring himself to say that any suits are abusive, but merely that doctors are for some reason practicing “defensive medicine [that] may be contributing to unnecessary costs.” To help pacify them, the best he could offer was to “direct” Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius to “authorize demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues.”

The Trial Lawyers’ Earmark: Using Medicare to Finance the Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous

Edwin Meese, III and Hans A. von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation

In one of the starkest examples of how plaintiffs’ lawyers want to use Congress to get rich at the expense of the American taxpayer, an amendment that would have generated abusive Medicare litigation on a massive scale—along with the usual huge attorneys’ fees—was recently added to the health care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] The current Medicare statute simply ensures that Medicare is reimbursed for the medical benefits it pays when a third party is legally responsible for a Medicare beneficiary’s injuries or medical costs.

No More Rhinestone Cowboys

Editorial, The Washington Times

New regulations taking effect today make an awful new law even worse. Government is putting huge new burdens on retailers and manufacturers already reeling from a bad economy.

© 2009 Foundation for Fair Civil Justice 6100 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 520 Atlanta, GA 30328 404.228.3261 info@foundationforfairciviljustice.org