In my Business Law class last night the professor for the class pointed out that Kansas is one of the least litigious states in the Union. This should not be too surprising since this is the Midwest, and there is a higher percentage of passive personalities in the Midwest than elsewhere in the country. The initial class reaction, with us being business students, was that this is a good thing. He, being an attorney, felt that this was more indicative of an unwillingness to stand up for individual rights.
I am generally in the camp that believes that a world with fewer lawsuits is a good thing. Too few lawsuits just feels more ideal than too many. In a less litigious state you don't have to worry as much about getting sued for things that are not completely in your control and I would assume that is part of why a lot of goods and services cost less in the Midwest than on the coasts.
Even from my perspective, though, I can see the advantages of a more litigious society. It gives people and businesses something to think about before they do something reckless. You wouldn't have to be as concerned about being wronged by someone else if that person is genuinely concerned about the implications of such actions.
So, what is your opinion? Is it better to have a society devoid of litigation or with too much litigation? Is it better to live in a world where defendants rule or plaintiffs rule? You be the judge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe you are right on the score that businesses and companies need to feel there will be consequences for their actions. I don't really like or dislike lawyers, but I realize that they are necessary to keep power-hungry companies from taking advantage of everyday people. But I am not an expert.
What comes to mind are my only experiences with this type of lawsuit from movies: "Class Action" with Gene Hackman and "Erin Brokovich" (where Julia Roberts works for that lawfirm doing a class action against that water treatment plant). In both cases, big industry are literally murdering people by careless industry practices and getting away with it. We have to have some way in our society from keeping this from happening.
There needs to be less of the "Judge Judy" type cases where people have a hard time getting along so they destruct each other's property.
I don't have a problem with legitimate lawsuits involving murder or careless practices.
I couldn't imagine a world without lawyers. Think of the horror.
I lean towards the "less is better" in this case. But it's not how I make a living either.
Although I'm a not-so-secret fan of Judge Judy, mainly because of it's increasingly Jerry Springerish content .....I have to say that I gree with Golden about the frivolus lawsuits that stem from not being able to get along. In those cases, I think low-level and quick acting summary judgements made by the court should penalize both parties for not being able to settle it themselves.
On the other hand, I wonder why some no-fault divorce states haven't required standardized pre-nups to accompany marriage licenses. That sure would save a good deal of time on the other end.
Post a Comment