Reader Meet Author

I mentioned something in my last post about the courts. I think the exact words I used were “maybe it’s the after-effect of a court system that’s all too happy to side with stupid people who should have known better” (talking about employers who are afraid to fire cruddy employees). It got me thinking about frivolent law suits and the court system that seems to be ok with them.

I’m a big fan of the court system in principle. I like the idea of a structured, peaceful environment in which opposing parties can meet to settle differences. It’s much better than the old way: sword through the gut or duel to the death. In theory, no one has to die and, again, in theory, a fair and unbiased decision can be reached. Complications to the system and variables out of the court’s control, such as investigated evidence, prejudice, and tons of red tape, have made the process a little more complex than simple conflict resolution. But the principle is still there… somewhere.

The Constitution of the United States established a Supreme Court, but defers creation of all lesser courts to the Congress. And boy did they create lesser courts. The entire system is very complex. State courts… state appeals courts… state supreme courts… federal courts… federal appeals courts… and finally, the good ol’ Supreme Court. I won’t even get into the sud-divisions within each of these groups of courts. Needless to say, if you’ve got beef there are a lot of places for you to go with it.

Crimes are dealt with by the courts. Interpretation of laws is handled by the courts. Various parts of the investigative process are tied in with the courts, such as issuing warrants and the setting of bail. Judges and juries literally decide the fate of people brought before them each and every day. And billions of dollars in judgments are handed down across the country every year. But it’s not just the big things that end up in court. You can take your neighbor to court for having loud dogs. You can take an ex-lover to court for never paying any rent while you lived together. Yeah… I watch Judge Judy (I love that bitch… haha).

It seems that nothing is off-limits to the courts these days. In many cases, legitimate concerns are involved and it’s good that they are being resolved. But in some cases, people end up before a judge who shouldn’t. People who should be at home, hiding in shame, feel that they’ve somehow been wronged by someone else who assumed they had common sense. While assumptions usually lead to inaccurate information… they’re not illegal. Assuming that someone knows not to do something (or to do something) might be irresponsible. But it shouldn’t be punishable by law.

Now before you flame me for saying assumptions shouldn’t be illegal, let me elaborate. I’m talking about common sense things here. Really, really common sense things like:

- Coffee is hot. Anyone who’s ever drank coffee knows this. Most people who don’t drink coffee know this. The only person who might not know is a child. And they shouldn’t be drinking coffee anyway.

- Don’t put electrical appliances in the bathtub with you. Even if it wasn’t common sense that electricity + water = bad, it should be common sense that submerging your hairdryer in the bathtub will ruin the hairdryer. If you want to get rid of an appliance, throw the thing away. Don’t drown it. It’s not alive.

- Smoking is harmful to your health. Every box of cigarettes says so. Every study ever done on cigarette smoke says so. If you inhale burning plants into your lungs directly… over and over again… prepare to have soot in your lungs. Look at a chimney. Duh.

- If something is labeled flammable… don’t put it near a flame. Flammable… flameable… flame… get it? If it’s labeled toxic… don’t drink it. If it’s labeled hot… don’t put it on your bare flesh. If it’s labeled “mature” or “18+ only”… don’t give it to your 12 year old child.

- If you commit a crime and get injured or killed in the process… YOUR BAD. If you get shot and killed while trying to break into someone’s house… YOUR BAD. If you get hurt trying to break out of prison… YOUR BAD. If you get drunk and can’t operate your seatbelt, and drown… YOUR BAD. Your family should be shamed by your stupidity. Not awarded money because of it.

All of the things listed above are based on cases in which actual damages were awarded to people suing because of something they obviously should have known or that was common sense. Really, really common sense. Granted, some of the awards were thrown out on appeal. But the fact remains that an initial judgment was made in favor of these people.

The problem lies in the jury system. Don’t get me wrong… I’m a fan of the jury system. Sometimes it doesn’t work. But for the most part, it’s a much better system than any of the alternatives. But because juries are filled with other people who are able to ignore common sense, they will always be flawed. If someone feels they were wronged because they chose not to listen to common sense, there is almost always going to be other people who can be swayed in the same way. Luckily, appeals are not handled by juries.

I’m not blasting the American Judiciary. Far from it. Like I said before, I’m a fan of judicial processes here in The States. But it worries me that some of these cases were able to make it through at least the first stage of the process without being laughed out of the courthouse. I fear for the susceptibility of our mob mentality to clever attorneys and “poor, pitiful me” plaintiffs. There should be a common sense rule incorporated into legal doctrine. If it can be proven that the majority of the population would know better, a case should be ruled invalid.

I mean… I stuck a butter knife in the toaster when I was little and got the shit shocked out of me. Did I sue because the toaster didn’t say “no butter knives” on it? No. I didn’t. I felt stupid and never told anyone. Until just now.

So pay up… where are my millions?