So Sue Me!
Litigation In An Age Of Greed
One of Australia’s biggest medical insurers, United Medical Protection, has recently announced its liquidation, leaving thousands of doctors and other medical professionals without any Liability Insurance, which would effectively put them out of work. Of course, subsequently the sick and infirm would be the ultimate victims of such a disaster. The government assures us that it will not let this happen, saying that it may temporarily insure doctors, but there seems to be no long term solution to the collapse of the nation’s main malpractice insurer.
However, the question is not whether or not the government should bail out the insurer. The question is why did UMP collapse? Well, because it simply cannot afford to keep paying out the enormous sums won by various parties in legal action against its insured, nor can it meet the required capital to honour such claims. This, even when the cost of said insurance has risen in astronomical leaps and bounds over recent years. Mary (not her real name), a psychiatrist from Sydney’s west, says that her medico-legal insurance premiums have doubled since last year, now comprising well over ten percent of her total income after tax. She has, as a result, had to stop bulk-billing in order to meet these costs. Already the patients are suffering.
These, however, are all symptoms of a larger, darker problem. Why are so many enormous sums being paid out to plaintiffs in litigation cases? There is undoubtedly a new culture that has been slowly emerging over the last few years and it is a culture of greed.
We need look no further than the USA to see just how ridiculous some litigation cases can be. Australia is quickly heading down the road that the US followed. Here are some recent examples from the US to help set the scene. These are all taken from something called the Stella Awards. Most people by now have heard of the Darwin Awards, posthumously presented to people that have done the world a favour by removing themselves from the gene pool in spectacularly stupid style. The Stella Awards are born of a similar need to ridicule that which would otherwise be really very upsetting.
The awards are named after Stella Liebeck who, in 1994 at the age of 81, was awarded US.9 million in damages after spilling a cup of McDonalds coffee in her lap, resulting in third degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks. The jury found that the coffee was not only hot, but actually far hotter than anybody would reasonably expect. That fact aside, US.9 million?
Examples of people in the US that have achieved Stella status since Ms Liebeck herself include Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas who, in January 2000, was awarded US0,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running around in a store. The case may not seem too outrageous until you consider that the toddler that caused the accident by running amok was Ms Robertson’s own son.
In October 1998 Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania had just robbed a house. He chose to exit through the garage. The door connecting the garage and the house locked shut when he pulled it closed and Mr Dickson subsequently discovered that the main door was broken. The family that lived in the house was on holiday and Mr Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food that he found. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish and the jury agreed. They awarded him half a million US dollars.
Another one? No problem, there are numerous examples. In May 2000 a Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay US3,500 to Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Ms Carson slipped on a soft drink that had been spilled on the floor and broke her coccyx. Fair enough? Not really. The drink was spilled on the floor as Ms Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend thirty seconds earlier during a heated argument.
The point is obviously being made quite clear, but let’s have just one more to be sure. Oklahoma City, November 2000. Mr Merv Grazinski bought himself a brand new Winnebago Motor Home. On his first trip Mr Grazinski drove onto the freeway and set the cruise control. He then went into the back of the motor home to make himself a cup of coffee. The Winnebago subsequently left the freeway and overturned quite dramatically. Mr Grazinski sued the manufacturer for not advising him in the handbook that this was not what Cruise Control meant and he was awarded US
So Sue Me!
Litigation In An Age Of Greed
One of Australia’s biggest medical insurers, United Medical Protection, has recently announced its liquidation, leaving thousands of doctors and other medical professionals without any Liability Insurance, which would effectively put them out of work. Of course, subsequently the sick and infirm would be the ultimate victims of such a disaster. The government assures us that it will not let this happen, saying that it may temporarily insure doctors, but there seems to be no long term solution to the collapse of the nation’s main malpractice insurer.
However, the question is not whether or not the government should bail out the insurer. The question is why did UMP collapse? Well, because it simply cannot afford to keep paying out the enormous sums won by various parties in legal action against its insured, nor can it meet the required capital to honour such claims. This, even when the cost of said insurance has risen in astronomical leaps and bounds over recent years. Mary (not her real name), a psychiatrist from Sydney’s west, says that her medico-legal insurance premiums have doubled since last year, now comprising well over ten percent of her total income after tax. She has, as a result, had to stop bulk-billing in order to meet these costs. Already the patients are suffering.
These, however, are all symptoms of a larger, darker problem. Why are so many enormous sums being paid out to plaintiffs in litigation cases? There is undoubtedly a new culture that has been slowly emerging over the last few years and it is a culture of greed.
We need look no further than the USA to see just how ridiculous some litigation cases can be. Australia is quickly heading down the road that the US followed. Here are some recent examples from the US to help set the scene. These are all taken from something called the Stella Awards. Most people by now have heard of the Darwin Awards, posthumously presented to people that have done the world a favour by removing themselves from the gene pool in spectacularly stupid style. The Stella Awards are born of a similar need to ridicule that which would otherwise be really very upsetting.
The awards are named after Stella Liebeck who, in 1994 at the age of 81, was awarded US$2.9 million in damages after spilling a cup of McDonalds coffee in her lap, resulting in third degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks. The jury found that the coffee was not only hot, but actually far hotter than anybody would reasonably expect. That fact aside, US$2.9 million?
Examples of people in the US that have achieved Stella status since Ms Liebeck herself include Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas who, in January 2000, was awarded US$780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running around in a store. The case may not seem too outrageous until you consider that the toddler that caused the accident by running amok was Ms Robertson’s own son.
In October 1998 Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania had just robbed a house. He chose to exit through the garage. The door connecting the garage and the house locked shut when he pulled it closed and Mr Dickson subsequently discovered that the main door was broken. The family that lived in the house was on holiday and Mr Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food that he found. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish and the jury agreed. They awarded him half a million US dollars.
Another one? No problem, there are numerous examples. In May 2000 a Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay US$113,500 to Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Ms Carson slipped on a soft drink that had been spilled on the floor and broke her coccyx. Fair enough? Not really. The drink was spilled on the floor as Ms Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend thirty seconds earlier during a heated argument.
The point is obviously being made quite clear, but let’s have just one more to be sure. Oklahoma City, November 2000. Mr Merv Grazinski bought himself a brand new Winnebago Motor Home. On his first trip Mr Grazinski drove onto the freeway and set the cruise control. He then went into the back of the motor home to make himself a cup of coffee. The Winnebago subsequently left the freeway and overturned quite dramatically. Mr Grazinski sued the manufacturer for not advising him in the handbook that this was not what Cruise Control meant and he was awarded US$1,750,000 and a new Winnebago. The company have now added a line in their owners manuals, explaining quite clearly that even when the vehicle is on cruise control, the driver must continue to steer and be prepared to brake if necessary.
All these stories are really quite amusing. No doubt you laughed and shook your head in amazement at each one. But how funny would it be if you owned the restaurant that had to pay Ms Carson US$113,500? How much would you laugh if your home insurance premiums increased enormously due to Mr Dickson’s successful suit against your home insurer? Like so much humour, it’s only really funny when it happens to someone else.
Yet right here at home we are seeing an alarming rise in litigation suits. Have a look in the Yellow Pages and you will see dozens of lawyers advertising No Win, No Fee arrangements to file your lawsuit. This, combined with stories every day of other people cashing in on their own misfortune, is setting a dangerous precedent. Especially when there is a really fine line between a person’s misfortune and their own plain stupidity. This is only further enhanced by the attitude of the current legal system. Paul Smith, a lawyer specialising in litigation, confirms that, “Trial judges and juries seem to have forgotten about the concept of contributory negligence.”
The psychiatrist mentioned earlier in this article also has something to say on this subject. She believes that people are less inclined to take responsibility for their own actions these days due to “ridiculous expectations of safety and fairness in the world, over-regulation by different governing bodies and… less personal freedom in everyday life.” She blames part of this problem in society on “modeling by litigation.”
Ask anyone what they think of the current state of litigation and they will no doubt claim loudly that it is a shocking state of affairs. They will surely agree that people are simply not prepared any more to take responsibility for their own actions. With the lawyers’ No Win, No Fee offers and the constant bombardment through the media that everyone is entitled to their share of someone elses money it seems that we are almost obliged to sue someone should anything untoward occur in our life. But what is the real cost of all this to society? Can we afford to lose 90% of our doctors as a direct result of litigation payouts?
There is an old saying. “Individuals are usually quite intelligent. It’s people that are stupid.” Where does the individual give in to the will of the people? How long can a person swim against the tide, even in the face of enormous evidence that shows that the tide has got it wrong?
There is the obvious point that a person’s current status will have a bearing on their moral decisions. Dave Wynn, a Team Manager for a leading car insurance company, would know all about damage claims. He has seen a massive increase in the cost of premiums. He agrees that “passing the buck and blaming others is fast becoming the most popular pastime” and he puts this down to a possible “by-product of a nanny state”.
Although he also says that, “Morals come first, where possible. However, experience has taught me morals go out the window when you are on the poverty line, so it depends.”
A valid point. How many groceries will morals get you compared to a sizeable compensation payout? Do we, as a society, even have morals any more? Anton Emdin, a freelance illustrator from Sydney, says, “Morals are only a reflection of our society. People these days believe that litigation is actually a moral action.”
Anton also has a very good point. While everyone agrees that litigation is becoming ludicrous, we are, at the same time, constantly reminded that being paid huge sums of money for misfortune is our moral and legal right.
But is it really? Why are we repeatedly told that no matter what goes wrong in our lives, no matter what may befall us, we will be all right as long as somebody gives us a wad of cash?
A lot of people will attempt to justify pursuing a large payout. One commonly cited justification is that a person who was injured by someone else wants that person to pay for their mistake. When we feel hard done by we want someone to suffer for that. However, quite aside from the less offensive reasoning involved in taking the high road, who really pays?
If a person makes a mistake driving and wrecks your vehicle then they should foot the bill to replace your car. That is what insurance is for. If you were hurt and incurred medical bills then their insurance should also cover that. But getting revenge for the inconvenience by patching together a bogus list of damages and injuries, including huge sums of money for the stress it caused, in order to get the most cash possible is really not teaching anyone a lesson. The person who made the mistake does not lose any more money, it is the insurance company that pays out the extra. And while the person that made the mistake will have an increased insurance premium the following year due to their error, so will everyone else due to the greed of the plaintiff. The plaintiff who, it must be said, is equally likely to make a mistake of their own at some point in their life.
There is also a secondary suffering that a lot of people do not initially consider when we measure the real cost of litigation. There is a psychological cost not only to the person being sued, but also to the litigate. In the words of our aforementioned psychiatrist, “I have seen many people, many of them patients, having many years of their lives suspended or destroyed by waiting for the verdict in a powerless, victimised state.”
It is quite understandable that if a person is seriously injured and their ability to earn a living is impaired then a lump sum payout could be exactly what they need. If their injury was a result of someone elses negligence, then that someone can reasonably be expected to foot the bill for the life they have ruined. So it is a judgment call, based on how much any given injury really affects a persons life. That is a very difficult call to make, but it is not necessarily difficult to spot the difference between an injury that is a brief, minor inconvenience and an injury that is going to continually affect a person’s quality of life.
You have to ask yourself, just how debilitating is a broken ankle, as in the case of Ms Robertson mentioned above? Is a broken ankle going to have a major impact on Ms Robertson’s life for any great length of time? And is that inconvenience worth US$750,000? The fact is that Ms Robertson’s own son was the direct cause of her broken ankle. The same child running rampant could have tripped her over in the street. Would she then have sued the council? Probably. Ms Robertson refused to take responsibility for looking after her own child because she saw the chance to cash in. And, quite frankly, even if all that is put to one side, how is a broken ankle ever worth US$750,000? If Ms Robertson’s greed is ignored and the details of the case glossed over, how can anyone justify around one and half million dollars Australian for the short term discomfort of a broken ankle, except perhaps a professional dancer or athlete?
So perhaps the first issue to address is the preposterous sums of money to be made. Would Ms Robertson have gone to all the trouble of pursuing this case if she knew that all she was likely to get was a couple of hundred dollars to compensate for a few days of missed work? Would the lawyers involved have even bothered to represent her for the percentage of that couple of hundred dollars that they would have received? Lawyers would certainly never do anything for altruistic reasons, so if the total of the payout was likely to be less than the lawyer’s fees, this case would never have seen the light of day.
Paul Smith claims an obligation as a lawyer. Would he claim for more than he actually or reasonably lost in a litigation case? “Personally, no. For a client, yes. Lawyers are obliged to use the law to the maximum advantage of the client.” So perhaps the lawyers do have a perceived professional obligation. In which case it would seem that the law is wrong.
And all this is totally ignoring the fact that it was Ms Robertson’s own fault that she broke her ankle in the first place! If she had more control of her own child then this whole situation would never have arisen, which reminds us of Paul’s earlier point regarding contributory negligence.
The whole notion that these sums of money are there to be made is really too tempting for a lot of people to ignore. There are the more and more frequent cases of people engineering an accident in order to claim compensation. It is becoming quite common for people to put together a scheme where they get injured while a friend just so happens to have a video camera handy. Then, armed with all the evidence they need, they find someone to pin the blame on and go after their fortune.
And the opportunist is always on the lookout. Not too long ago there was the story of a bus in the US that was involved in an accident at a major intersection. At the time of the crash there were only a couple of people on the bus. By the time the police and ambulances arrived, there were fifteen “passengers” aboard, all complaining of neck and back pain.
So who is really fuelling this culture of greed? The simple truth is that people will grab any opportunity to make a buck, the easier the better. Who could resist if someone walked up to them in the street and said, “I can get you thousands of dollars for nothing if you follow the script I write you.” That is certainly one part of the problem. Lawyers offering No Win, No Fee representation are making it too easy for people to sue. After all, if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, then it has to be worth a go, right? Everybody is constantly reminded that the path to true happiness is a fat bank balance. It is true that the more money you have the easier a ride through life you are likely to get, but when are people going to stop gathering personal wealth at the expense of everyone else? There will come a time when there is no more wealth to gather.
If people continue to sue doctors for things that are, in all honesty, beyond the doctor’s control, then soon enough there will be no doctors left. What is the point in having a bank full of money if you are too sick to spend it?
The lawyers and their offers only work if the people are greedy enough to take them up on those offers and if the law allows it. So the lawyers would have us believe that they are not to blame. They are simply supplying a service that people want. The details of the law aside, it is the people that are the problem, and their never ending quest for personal gain. And every time one of these greedy people manage to get a lawyer to successfully pursue their Mickey Mouse lawsuit they set a precedent that the same lawyers will use to help slip the next case through more easily and quickly. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of greed. Surely it has to stop somewhere. Hopefully before all the money has run out. Hopefully before all the institutions that make this country great such as the health service, the Surf Life Savers, the clubs and associations and so on have all been driven out of existence because they can no longer afford to insure themselves.
Andrew Orszulok, an engineer from Sydney’s north, was recently called by his distraught wife as she drove their daughter to hospital. Young Alice had fallen from the play equipment while waiting for sports lessons after school and broken her arm. After the initial emergency was over Mr Orszulok spoke to the organisers. Their first question, asked in a quite calm and matter-of-fact way, was, “Are you planning to sue us?” Mr Orszulok was rather surprised and assured them that no, accidents happen, kids fall. His attitude in the light of this article is commendable. In truth, however, his attitude is really just common sense. Why should the organisers have even been concerned that they might be sued? After all, accidents do happen, kids do fall. Even when they are being closely supervised, a child can injure themselves remarkably quickly.
A young man in Australia recently tried to sue the State Rail Authority. He was brain damaged while traveling on a train. He had leaned out of a window while the train was traveling to spray paint graffiti on the outside of the carriage. There was a sign on the window warning against leaning out of a moving train, but he chose to ignore that. As the train entered a tunnel the young man struck his head and was severely injured. In this instance the judge threw the case out. After all, it was entirely the young man’s fault and plenty of warning was given with the sign on the window. The young man was forced to take responsibility for his own actions and to live with the consequences.
That is a very reassuring situation, as is Mr Orszulok’s position on his daughter’s accident. But by the middle of this year, in a less reassuring scenario, the huge majority of Australian medical professionals could be without any kind of insurance as a direct result of cases that were not thrown out. As a direct result of people not accepting that sometimes in our lives things happen that are unfair. It is really not anybody’s fault. Blaming someone else may make a person feel better in the short term. Getting a huge sum of money may help them to forget their own negligence or help them to accept that shit happens. But at what cost?
There are people in terrible situations that really need help. Those people need recourse to get the financial aid required to give them a basic quality of life that everybody deserves. How long will it be before this country goes the way of the US and those people are left wanting and the most benevolent of institutions are gone, while the legal system repeatedly rewards the stupidity and greed of the few?
,750,000 and a new Winnebago. The company have now added a line in their owners manuals, explaining quite clearly that even when the vehicle is on cruise control, the driver must continue to steer and be prepared to brake if necessary.
All these stories are really quite amusing. No doubt you laughed and shook your head in amazement at each one. But how funny would it be if you owned the restaurant that had to pay Ms Carson US3,500? How much would you laugh if your home insurance premiums increased enormously due to Mr Dickson’s successful suit against your home insurer? Like so much humour, it’s only really funny when it happens to someone else.
Yet right here at home we are seeing an alarming rise in litigation suits. Have a look in the Yellow Pages and you will see dozens of lawyers advertising No Win, No Fee arrangements to file your lawsuit. This, combined with stories every day of other people cashing in on their own misfortune, is setting a dangerous precedent. Especially when there is a really fine line between a person’s misfortune and their own plain stupidity. This is only further enhanced by the attitude of the current legal system. Paul Smith, a lawyer specialising in litigation, confirms that, “Trial judges and juries seem to have forgotten about the concept of contributory negligence.”
The psychiatrist mentioned earlier in this article also has something to say on this subject. She believes that people are less inclined to take responsibility for their own actions these days due to “ridiculous expectations of safety and fairness in the world, over-regulation by different governing bodies and… less personal freedom in everyday life.” She blames part of this problem in society on “modeling by litigation.”
Ask anyone what they think of the current state of litigation and they will no doubt claim loudly that it is a shocking state of affairs. They will surely agree that people are simply not prepared any more to take responsibility for their own actions. With the lawyers’ No Win, No Fee offers and the constant bombardment through the media that everyone is entitled to their share of someone elses money it seems that we are almost obliged to sue someone should anything untoward occur in our life. But what is the real cost of all this to society? Can we afford to lose 90% of our doctors as a direct result of litigation payouts?
There is an old saying. “Individuals are usually quite intelligent. It’s people that are stupid.” Where does the individual give in to the will of the people? How long can a person swim against the tide, even in the face of enormous evidence that shows that the tide has got it wrong?
There is the obvious point that a person’s current status will have a bearing on their moral decisions. Dave Wynn, a Team Manager for a leading car insurance company, would know all about damage claims. He has seen a massive increase in the cost of premiums. He agrees that “passing the buck and blaming others is fast becoming the most popular pastime” and he puts this down to a possible “by-product of a nanny state”.
Although he also says that, “Morals come first, where possible. However, experience has taught me morals go out the window when you are on the poverty line, so it depends.”
A valid point. How many groceries will morals get you compared to a sizeable compensation payout? Do we, as a society, even have morals any more? Anton Emdin, a freelance illustrator from Sydney, says, “Morals are only a reflection of our society. People these days believe that litigation is actually a moral action.”
Anton also has a very good point. While everyone agrees that litigation is becoming ludicrous, we are, at the same time, constantly reminded that being paid huge sums of money for misfortune is our moral and legal right.
But is it really? Why are we repeatedly told that no matter what goes wrong in our lives, no matter what may befall us, we will be all right as long as somebody gives us a wad of cash?
A lot of people will attempt to justify pursuing a large payout. One commonly cited justification is that a person who was injured by someone else wants that person to pay for their mistake. When we feel hard done by we want someone to suffer for that. However, quite aside from the less offensive reasoning involved in taking the high road, who really pays?
If a person makes a mistake driving and wrecks your vehicle then they should foot the bill to replace your car. That is what insurance is for. If you were hurt and incurred medical bills then their insurance should also cover that. But getting revenge for the inconvenience by patching together a bogus list of damages and injuries, including huge sums of money for the stress it caused, in order to get the most cash possible is really not teaching anyone a lesson. The person who made the mistake does not lose any more money, it is the insurance company that pays out the extra. And while the person that made the mistake will have an increased insurance premium the following year due to their error, so will everyone else due to the greed of the plaintiff. The plaintiff who, it must be said, is equally likely to make a mistake of their own at some point in their life.
There is also a secondary suffering that a lot of people do not initially consider when we measure the real cost of litigation. There is a psychological cost not only to the person being sued, but also to the litigate. In the words of our aforementioned psychiatrist, “I have seen many people, many of them patients, having many years of their lives suspended or destroyed by waiting for the verdict in a powerless, victimised state.”
It is quite understandable that if a person is seriously injured and their ability to earn a living is impaired then a lump sum payout could be exactly what they need. If their injury was a result of someone elses negligence, then that someone can reasonably be expected to foot the bill for the life they have ruined. So it is a judgment call, based on how much any given injury really affects a persons life. That is a very difficult call to make, but it is not necessarily difficult to spot the difference between an injury that is a brief, minor inconvenience and an injury that is going to continually affect a person’s quality of life.
You have to ask yourself, just how debilitating is a broken ankle, as in the case of Ms Robertson mentioned above? Is a broken ankle going to have a major impact on Ms Robertson’s life for any great length of time? And is that inconvenience worth US0,000? The fact is that Ms Robertson’s own son was the direct cause of her broken ankle. The same child running rampant could have tripped her over in the street. Would she then have sued the council? Probably. Ms Robertson refused to take responsibility for looking after her own child because she saw the chance to cash in. And, quite frankly, even if all that is put to one side, how is a broken ankle ever worth US0,000? If Ms Robertson’s greed is ignored and the details of the case glossed over, how can anyone justify around one and half million dollars Australian for the short term discomfort of a broken ankle, except perhaps a professional dancer or athlete?
So perhaps the first issue to address is the preposterous sums of money to be made. Would Ms Robertson have gone to all the trouble of pursuing this case if she knew that all she was likely to get was a couple of hundred dollars to compensate for a few days of missed work? Would the lawyers involved have even bothered to represent her for the percentage of that couple of hundred dollars that they would have received? Lawyers would certainly never do anything for altruistic reasons, so if the total of the payout was likely to be less than the lawyer’s fees, this case would never have seen the light of day.
Paul Smith claims an obligation as a lawyer. Would he claim for more than he actually or reasonably lost in a litigation case? “Personally, no. For a client, yes. Lawyers are obliged to use the law to the maximum advantage of the client.” So perhaps the lawyers do have a perceived professional obligation. In which case it would seem that the law is wrong.
And all this is totally ignoring the fact that it was Ms Robertson’s own fault that she broke her ankle in the first place! If she had more control of her own child then this whole situation would never have arisen, which reminds us of Paul’s earlier point regarding contributory negligence.
The whole notion that these sums of money are there to be made is really too tempting for a lot of people to ignore. There are the more and more frequent cases of people engineering an accident in order to claim compensation. It is becoming quite common for people to put together a scheme where they get injured while a friend just so happens to have a video camera handy. Then, armed with all the evidence they need, they find someone to pin the blame on and go after their fortune.
And the opportunist is always on the lookout. Not too long ago there was the story of a bus in the US that was involved in an accident at a major intersection. At the time of the crash there were only a couple of people on the bus. By the time the police and ambulances arrived, there were fifteen “passengers” aboard, all complaining of neck and back pain.
So who is really fuelling this culture of greed? The simple truth is that people will grab any opportunity to make a buck, the easier the better. Who could resist if someone walked up to them in the street and said, “I can get you thousands of dollars for nothing if you follow the script I write you.” That is certainly one part of the problem. Lawyers offering No Win, No Fee representation are making it too easy for people to sue. After all, if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, then it has to be worth a go, right? Everybody is constantly reminded that the path to true happiness is a fat bank balance. It is true that the more money you have the easier a ride through life you are likely to get, but when are people going to stop gathering personal wealth at the expense of everyone else? There will come a time when there is no more wealth to gather.
If people continue to sue doctors for things that are, in all honesty, beyond the doctor’s control, then soon enough there will be no doctors left. What is the point in having a bank full of money if you are too sick to spend it?
The lawyers and their offers only work if the people are greedy enough to take them up on those offers and if the law allows it. So the lawyers would have us believe that they are not to blame. They are simply supplying a service that people want. The details of the law aside, it is the people that are the problem, and their never ending quest for personal gain. And every time one of these greedy people manage to get a lawyer to successfully pursue their Mickey Mouse lawsuit they set a precedent that the same lawyers will use to help slip the next case through more easily and quickly. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of greed. Surely it has to stop somewhere. Hopefully before all the money has run out. Hopefully before all the institutions that make this country great such as the health service, the Surf Life Savers, the clubs and associations and so on have all been driven out of existence because they can no longer afford to insure themselves.
Andrew Orszulok, an engineer from Sydney’s north, was recently called by his distraught wife as she drove their daughter to hospital. Young Alice had fallen from the play equipment while waiting for sports lessons after school and broken her arm. After the initial emergency was over Mr Orszulok spoke to the organisers. Their first question, asked in a quite calm and matter-of-fact way, was, “Are you planning to sue us?” Mr Orszulok was rather surprised and assured them that no, accidents happen, kids fall. His attitude in the light of this article is commendable. In truth, however, his attitude is really just common sense. Why should the organisers have even been concerned that they might be sued? After all, accidents do happen, kids do fall. Even when they are being closely supervised, a child can injure themselves remarkably quickly.
A young man in Australia recently tried to sue the State Rail Authority. He was brain damaged while traveling on a train. He had leaned out of a window while the train was traveling to spray paint graffiti on the outside of the carriage. There was a sign on the window warning against leaning out of a moving train, but he chose to ignore that. As the train entered a tunnel the young man struck his head and was severely injured. In this instance the judge threw the case out. After all, it was entirely the young man’s fault and plenty of warning was given with the sign on the window. The young man was forced to take responsibility for his own actions and to live with the consequences.
That is a very reassuring situation, as is Mr Orszulok’s position on his daughter’s accident. But by the middle of this year, in a less reassuring scenario, the huge majority of Australian medical professionals could be without any kind of insurance as a direct result of cases that were not thrown out. As a direct result of people not accepting that sometimes in our lives things happen that are unfair. It is really not anybody’s fault. Blaming someone else may make a person feel better in the short term. Getting a huge sum of money may help them to forget their own negligence or help them to accept that shit happens. But at what cost?
There are people in terrible situations that really need help. Those people need recourse to get the financial aid required to give them a basic quality of life that everybody deserves. How long will it be before this country goes the way of the US and those people are left wanting and the most benevolent of institutions are gone, while the legal system repeatedly rewards the stupidity and greed of the few?
