Recent Updates
January 03, 2012
Medical Marijuana and Social Security Disability
December 30, 2011
Punitive Damages
December 20, 2011
Medical Marijuana and Your Workers' Compensation Claim
December 13, 2011
What Do You Do?: Making Sense of My New Profession
December 13, 2011
Telephone Record Theft
What exactly is a frivolous lawsuit?
Posted by: Damon Davis
June 08, 2010
Topic: General
Many people talk about frivolous lawsuits. The subject of frivolous lawsuits comes up on the news and even in ordinary conversation. However few people talk about what a frivolous lawsuit actually means. To understand the topic of frivolous lawsuits, one must understand what "frivolous" actually means in the context of a lawsuit. People often use the term incorrectly, which can lead to confusion of the issues.
Some people use the term "frivolous lawsuit" to refer to a successful lawsuit on a law which they disagree with or do not like. However this is incorrect both in terms of the definition and in terms of civil justice. Because we live in a society of laws, all persons are entitled to enforcement of existing laws. This is without regard to others perception of the wisdom or value of such laws. A democratic system depends on the equal enforcement of laws to all persons. Any other system results in either anarchy in which no laws can be enforced, or despotism in which enforcement of the law depends entirely on the will of the enforcer. A free society depends on people knowing what the law is and being able to depend on its enforcement. Furthermore, as we live in a democratic republic, if we question the wisdom of our own laws, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Therefore a lawsuit is not frivolous simply because one disagrees with the law on which the lawsuit is based.
Some people use the term "frivolous lawsuit" to refer to lawsuits which were successful, but they disagree with the outcome. However, this also is not the correct definition. Rarely will a successful lawsuit be frivolous, because it must get past the judge, a finder of fact, which may be a judge or jury, and often an appellate court. On occasion the reference to a successful civil suit as frivolous is based upon a disagreement with the law as discussed above. However, sometimes it is based upon a lack of knowledge of the facts. For example, the infamous McDonald's coffee case is often cited as a "frivolous lawsuit." While I disagree with the outcome of the McDonald's coffee case, I would not describe it as "frivolous." Many people do not realize that the woman in the McDonald's coffee case was not just burned by the coffee, but that she suffered third degree burns requiring skin grafts. They also do not realize that McDonalds was aware that its coffee was capable of causing third degree burns. Now most of the time the coffee we drink would not cause third degree burns. If you were aware that your coffee might cause third degree burns, you would handle the coffee differently. This is why I do not think the lawsuit was frivolous. The burned woman would likely have handled her coffee differently had she been aware of the risk of third degree burns, yet knowing this, McDonalds did nothing to provide such a warning. However, I still disagree with the outcome because I believe the woman was equally negligent regardless of the absence of a warning. I am generally a supporter of the rule that a plaintiff whose negligence is equal to or greater than the defendants should not recover. Therefore, although I disagree with the result, I do not believe the suit was frivolous.
This leads to the third misuse of the term "frivolous lawsuit." Some people use the term "frivolous lawsuit" to refer to any suit in which the plaintiff is unsuccessful. However, this is also an inappropriate definition. It reflects a misunderstanding of the civil justice system. The principle purpose of the civil justice system is not to allow deserving plaintiffs to win, but to resolve a dispute between two people which they cannot resolve themselves. The civil justice system is a reflection of the old saying that there are three sides to every story, what one person says happened, what the other person says happened, and then what really happened. A lawsuit is intended to allow a neutral forum for parties to resolve their dispute with an enforceable result. If a plaintiff does not prevail, it does not mean the plaintiff lacked evidence, it simply means that the finder of fact was not sufficiently persuaded by the evidence presented. Because a lawsuit's purpose is to resolve disputes, it should be expected that plaintiffs with non-frivolous claims will still lose on occasion. This is simply a part of the system of resolving disputes.
A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit which lacks both legal and evidentiary support. It may present arguments that not only lack legal support but also lack any logical or rational support. It is a claim that does not just have weak evidence, but lacks any evidence. Even where the law does not currently recognize a claim, there may be logical reasons that such a claim should be recognized now and in the future. Likewise, evidence which may appear weak to some may be persuasive to others. However, on occasion a claim may lack both a logical basis and any evidentiary support. These are the claims that are frivolous. Such claims are rather rare and will usually be quickly disposed of by the court. There are several mechanisms available to the court and to parties faced with a frivolous lawsuit. These mechanisms usually ensure that a frivolous lawsuit does not make it very far. There is a sound reason that there are few frivolous lawsuits. First, no attorney wants to obtain a reputation for bringing frivolous lawsuits. Second, many lawsuits are brought on a contingent fee basis. This means that the attorney will not be paid unless the client is paid. This discourages the bringing of frivolous lawsuits, because such lawsuits will rarely, if ever, be successful. Rarely will an attorney desire to spend time and energy on a lawsuit which has little chance of success, meaning there is little chance of being paid. The attorney's own self interest reduces the number of frivolous lawsuits.
The next time you listen to or participate in a discussion regarding frivolous lawsuits, you should make sure you understand how the term is being used by the speakers. A correct understanding of the term will help you understand what the participants are advocating and what issues they are really complaining about. You may find that a complaint over a frivolous lawsuit is actually a complaint about something else, such as an existing law.
