That made me laugh. Of course it's abuse and probably needs reform if anyone can actually win such a lawsuit. (I wouldn't have imagined that a mirror being 2 inches too high is such a catastrophe). Lipstick went on crooked? Stand on a stool if you're that short, lol. Jeez there are public toilets in this world that are little more than a hole in the ground.
I agree on tort reform though naturally, this should be undertaken extremely carefully as when one takes away consumer rights, they can be notoriously hard to get back. (The downhill struggle on digital rights, being a nice example.) It's also worth considering that the great flaw in the legal system is that money talks, and the person or corporation with the most money usually wins. This is why consumers are given as much advantage as the law can provide; to counterbalance the financial gap. Sadly, this means that small businesses that do not enjoy the financial advantages of larger corporations get royally screwed.
Here's just an idea of mine (feel free to skip as it's not really relevant to the discussion):
Off the top of my head, it may be worth taking a page from existing the laws on debt collection. You don't really get to drag people to court due to an unpaid debt automatically and immediately calculate damages due to non-payment. You must have first produced a demand letter, giving the guy who borrowed the money a chance to settle the matter before the courts get involved. Failure to produce a demand letter waives the right of creditor to collect after a prescriptive period has lapsed (the "if you don't want it, then FINE!" doctrine, to coin a phrase). The reason this is done is because litigation should be typically be the last option to remedy a civil matter, not the first. It's expensive and time consuming to the plaintiffs, the defendants and taxpayers. (really, the only consistent winners here are the lawyers).
It's unavoidable to consider damages in the first incident of our bathroom case. After all, the damage was already done when the person was unable to use the mirror the first time. If we were to require a demand letter, written *after* the incident though, then at least the store owner will only have to deal with one incident instead of 27. If a demand letter were not submitted, then any subsequent incident would be assumed to have happened with the implied consent of the plaintiff (ergo, no further damages awarded).
I think a requirement of a demand letter, one that states the relevant law violated and the steps necessary to fix the problem, would be a step in the right direction.
For one, the damages to be paid would be significantly less, discouraging predatory law professionals from taking the case and abusing the law for a healthy percentage of whatever is awarded to their client. The case is then likely to move to a small claims court where it more properly belongs and the plaintiffs and defendants would be on more equal footing (assuming the case is pursued at all).
Demand letters also help to shore up the problem of ignorance on those obscure regulations not everyone is familiar with, since the letters themselves can serve as vehicles that promulgate information before any business-destroying tort is caused.
Off the top of my head, it may be worth taking a page from existing the laws on debt collection. You don't really get to drag people to court due to an unpaid debt automatically and immediately calculate damages due to non-payment. You must have first produced a demand letter, giving the guy who borrowed the money a chance to settle the matter before the courts get involved. Failure to produce a demand letter waives the right of creditor to collect after a prescriptive period has lapsed (the "if you don't want it, then FINE!" doctrine, to coin a phrase).
I disagree with that; until recently, California was plagued with lawyers sending businesses letters demanding massive settlements; the lawyers frequently never intended to take the case to court, but businesses would pay up anyways. It got so bad that they actually outlawed "demand for money" letters pretty recently.
One problem is that, in California, you can collect damages for minor ADA violations, as opposed to the business simply being fined or being told to fix the problem. The second is that people don't actually alert the businesses to these problems: it's one thing if the business has been told repeatedly that they're violating the law, but they shouldn't be able to sue without a warning.
Ah, you're confusing a demand letter with a threat to sue maybe? Sorry, I was just using the local industry jargon. (I live in the Philippines, so maybe the terminology differs even if the law is the same)
To clarify, a demand letter is designed to merely inform the debtor of his debt and that the creditor is still expecting to be paid. Think of it as a very long winded reminder note.
I suppose the problem in California is that their lawyers like to throw in a litigious threat or two to properly motivate people into paying. I do not agree with that. Sounds like the white collar version of threatening to break someone's legs if they don't pay.
Used properly (read, tastefully), a demand letter exists so that Debtors are protected from going getting sued for ten times what they owed simply because they were forgetful.
As a side note, this law also meant to protect creditors since the prescriptive period in which a debt is considered void resets upon the receipt of a letter of demand by the debtor.
I had no idea such a law existed regarding mirrors. I knew about bathrooms being disability compliant, but 2 inches for a mirror? How easy could it have been for the plaintiff to simply walk up to the owner and say "Excuse me sir, but I noticed your mirror in your rest room is a tad high for us people with disabilities. Could you lower it?"
These people are just too sue-happy. The McDonalds lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued at LEAST had a case because it turned out the machine was brewing the coffee hotter than it was supposed to, even though there is a warning on the cups that say coffee is HOT. THAT actually causes damage, even if it's user error. Complaining over a mirror is petty. Complaining after it's put in place properly is utter bullshit.
A SEPTA bus had a minor collision in a transportation authority service station. No passengers were onboard, the bus was long out of service and in a restricted area. No one outside the facility knew for like 2 days and then the claims rolled in. I think that's the case where someone showed up in a neckbrace to make their complaint/claim.
Petty malpractice suits have crippled the medical field in Pennsylvania.
Tort reform on a national level might be hard. But every State should be pressed to make their own reforms. It's failed in PA despite doctors and the like showing up to the State Legislature letting them know how fucked the situation is.
I’m wondering how the attorney justified the use of a mirror as part of the services provided by a restaurant. Law states they must provide a bathroom that meets OSHA guidelines. That doesn’t necessarily include a mirror.
Blame the idiots on a jury or a judge who thinks these people actually suffered any harm and awarded them damages. They are just filing nuisance lawsuits and the jury bit. I hope someone sues the members of the jury for some BS and they have to shell out their hard earned money to some shyster.
That doesn't completely solve the problem: many times plaintiffs will demand a massive settlement, and businesses have no choice but to pay it, because said settlements are often cheaper than defending against the lawsuit (even if the business wins).
So why are people so riled up over something like this, where individuals exploit legal protection rights in order to frivolously sue businesses, but ignore it when big corporations like Wal-Mart exploit their workers' rights in order to underpay them -- to the point where many must rely on federal aid [link] -- in order to keep their profits high? Why do we defend that as clever capitalism, but deride this as legal incompetence and entitlement culture? Shouldn't we be treating these people as innovators and entrepreneurs?
I'm more concerned about these two things: Why was a reward given to the plaintiff at all and why was there such a high reward for such a small and easily fixed violation? It should have been a citation or small fine at most, regardless of how many times the guy went into the bathroom.
I think the problem is cultural rather than in the law.
The problem is that the culture has forgotten that the "spirit of the law" is what matters, not the actual wording. Because we allow the wording of the law to take precedence over the "spirit of the law" (aka the reason we have the law in the first place), judges award money based on stupid technicalities rather than the facts of the situation.
There's a reason we have human judges and not robots, and we should remind society about this.
I agree. If we were to go by the spirit of the law vs the actual wording of the law. Than the 2nd amendment says what those who want to own guns think it does.
However if we go by the letter of the law... It means a organized and regulated mulitia... We call these organizations the national guard. (read up on the origins of the national guard, and how it morphed into the national guard from the militia so to better protect the public. A militia would never be able to fight the US military toe to toe.)
The letter of the law is important, though, because it is the only thing that's fixed. Lots of people can have very different opinions about what the spirit of the law is or should be. Nobody can argue about what's actually written. A legal system should always be set up so that people can know in advance whether they're going to be sued for something. Relying on the "spirit of the law" makes that a lot harder.
Our legal system, including its food pyramid, has been built up to squeeze as much juice out of lemons known as technicalities. This encourages substituting piles after piles of words over common sense. No wonder why American business and governmental organizations have to hire so many legal professionals; most other countries do not have to be this top-heavy and several of them look down on those who are too eager for lawsuits when conducting business.