Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue [Hardcover]

Stephanie Mencimer (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 5, 2006

Thanks to constant political oratory against "frivolous lawsuits" and "jackpot justice," it is widely known that there's a legal crisis in this country. President Bush never misses an opportunity to call for laws that would bring more "common sense" to a legal system that, he claims, is out of control, wrecking the economy, driving doctors out of their practices, bankrupting small businesses, and costing American jobs. Journalists repeat the charges without examining them.

As a result, the lawsuit issue has moved to the political front burner, and in the past three years, state after state has responded by limiting citizens' rights to sue. Just this year alone, the Republicanled Congress has passed restrictions on class action lawsuits and is steps away from enacting limits on medical malpractice lawsuits.

But is there really a crisis? National data show that the number of civil suits is falling, not rising, and that the average damage award is also going down. Despite intense media hype to the contrary, the number of personal injury lawsuits filed every year has been tumbling for the past decade. Upon closer examination, the stories of ridiculous lawsuits usually turn out to be false or badly misleading. The crisis, in short, appears to be a phantom.

So how do we explain the scary headlines? Who's behind the "tort reform movement," and what are the real goals? Blocking the Courthouse Door will show that the movement against so-called greedy trial lawyers and irresponsible plaintiffs is the result of a concerted and successful campaign by large corporations to get this issue on the table and thus limit their own vulnerability in the civil justice system. They have spent decades, and many millions of dollars, on focus groups and Madison Avenue public relations research. They have funded institutes, sponsored academic research, bankrolled politicians, set up phony "astroturf " grassroots organizations (with chamber of commerce return addresses), and fed copy to all-too-gullible journalists.

For corporations, the self-interest involved is fairly plain. Tobacco companies, no longer able to dodge the bullet of liability for knowingly selling poisons, are making an end run around the civil justice system. If they can't win a class action suit, they'll make suing itself illegal. Insurance companies, drowning in red ink from mismanagement and bad investments in the bond market, hike insurance rates by huge sums and blame malpractice suits. The doctors in turn blame greedy lawyers -- and their own injured patients. And for Republicans, the campaign provides an extra bonus: defunding the Democratic Party. Limits on lawsuits cut into the income of some of the Democratic Party's most generous donors, the trial lawyers, who are often the only source of campaign cash for Democrats in many states.

By exposing some of the dubious characters, corporate chicanery, skewed research, fudged numbers, and bogus journalism that have buttressed the calls for lawsuit reform,Stephanie Mencimer shows who's behind the movement to close the courthouse doors, and how they've successfully persuaded millions of Americans to give up their critical legal rights without fully understanding what they're losing -- often until it's too late.

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Investigative reporter Mencimer, a contributing editor to the Washington Monthly, takes on tort reformers with an energetic "serve and volley" approach. First Mencimer serves the arguments that proponents of tort reform make to support their agenda—limiting judicial remedies for victims of accidents, product liability suits, medical malpractice suits and the like—and then volleys those arguments back with statistics, anecdotes and conceptual arguments. She guides readers through many of the tort reformers' most cherished poster children of tort system abuse—the McDonald's scalding coffee case, the supposed abuses in medical malpractice and the tort reform movement's bête noire, the diabolical system of punitive damages—and systematically, and usually convincingly, debunks each of them. Mencimer identifies the architects of the tort reform movement as Republicans, corporations and professional groups that stand to gain politically or economically if the tort system is limited. The book's conclusion addresses the larger issue of the wisdom of requiring wrongdoers to pay for the damages from their actions, as opposed to other systems that employ social safety nets to spread the cost of such harm throughout the society. Although the author's advocacy is occasionally too zealous, she provides much food for thought. (Dec. 5)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

By demonizing trial attorneys and exaggerating high-profile litigation awards--the famous McDonald's hot-coffee case--campaigns for limiting damage awards threaten to jeopardize the American right to civil jury trials guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Investigative reporter Mencimer examines the Republican campaigns for tort reform that would protect large corporations from "frivolous lawsuits." The campaigns carry the dual benefit of supporting the interests of corporations that are major Republican campaign contributors and hurting trial lawyers, who are part of the contribution base of Democrats. Mencimer criticizes the media for their lack of understanding about civil litigation, willingness to swallow reports of litigation abuses, and failure to understand that Republican tort reform will also limit the ability of news organizations to sue for information. Drawing on national data and scrutiny of individual cases, Mencimer defends the civil justice system and its reliance on jurors, average citizens who are the same people who vote. This is an eye-opening look at an important issue for readers concerned with the civil justice system. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (December 5, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0743277007
• ISBN-13: 978-0743277006
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.4 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,124,756 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Stephanie Mencimer is a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. Her first book, Blocking the Courthouse Door has just been released.

Previously she worked as an investigative reporter at the Washington Post, a senior writer at the Washington City Paper and a staff writer for Legal Times. She has written for the New York Times, New Republic, Legal Affairs, American Propsect, Mother Jones and other national publications. In 2004, she was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the public service category for her Washington Monthly article on medical malpractice politics, and in 2000, won the Harry Chapin media award for reporting on hunger and poverty.

Stephanie was born and raised in Ogden, Utah. She graduated from the University of Oregon journalism school in 1990.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

48 of 52 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Don't We Trust Our Fellow Americans?, March 22, 2007

By 

Edwin C. Pauzer (New York City) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Hardcover)

Most of us have heard of Stella Liebeck, the 79-year old lady who put a hot cup of McDonald's coffee on her lap, which spilled over and caused her third degree burns. If many respected publications did not make sure we knew, than John Stossel surely did. We "learned" that she was awarded $2.9 million. According to the author Stephanie Mencimer, those who favor "tort reform" (limiting personal injury and suffering) made sure we knew, but didn't make sure that we knew the whole story. The author elaborates.

It seems this retired retail sales clerk and life-long Republican had never sued anyone a day in her life. Having stopped for coffee with her grandson, she attempted to negotiate the cream or sugar to the coffee between her legs as her grandson's car lacked cup holders. It spilled and she was scolded in her groin and thighs.

A few years and several operations later she appeals to McDonalds asking them if they could help her pay the $20,000 in medical expenses. Mickey D blew her off with a check for $800. That's when she retained a lawyer who offered to settle at $300,000, but McDonalds wouldn't touch it with a straw. They wanted to be taken to court.

That's when the jury, skeptical of Liebeck's claim at first, heard that McDonald's had more than 900 complaints of their coffee being too hot, that their executives knew that their coffee was served at 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit, that Mickey D's Big Cheeses knew all along such temperatures could burn flesh off bone in seven seconds, and that a Cincinnati burn center had treated numerous people for coffee burns from McD.

The outraged jury awarded her $160,000 for pain and suffering and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge, although sympathetic, knocked down to $486,000. Liebeck has since settled for less. (Had she received the 2.9, it would have cost the company one day of coffee sales.)

That's the part of this story we don't hear about. And this isn't even the author's icebreaker!

Stephanie Mencimer brings several things to light:

1) A civil trial by jury to redress wrongs is a constitutional right that is being eroded through tort reform, which now protects business more than the consumer or citizen.

2) Lawsuits are almost always the only way that corporate negligence ever receives public attention.

3) The companies that are being sued are the ones that require the most oversight, get the least, and are the most deserving of being sued.

4) Many of these corporations such as tobacco, asbestos, drug and auto companies are pouring billions of dollars into legislation that will cap awards, limit product liabillity, and limit lawyer fees making it nearly impossible for citizens to go to trial for their negligence or crimes.

5) Most of the outrageous cases we hear about never really existed e.g. a 400 lb. man who sued a ladder company when it fell apart, or the man who supposedly tried to trim his hedges with his lawn mower. All made up!

6) Lawsuits have actually decreased over the years as well as awards.

7) This is the real topper. The tort reform campaign has been hugely successful in getting Americans to vote in favor of legislation that will restrict or end their rights if criminal or negligent executives harm them. This massive lobbying effort has gotten mostly everyone to believe that it will not affect their day in court, when in fact they are voting their own rights away.

8) Guess which politician is one of the most industry and tort reform friendly. I won't say his name, but he's President of the United States.

9) There's always been a check on frivolous lawsuits. It's called a judge.

Thanks to lawsuits, we can now enjoy a company's coffee at 140-150 degrees. (After all, you deserve a break today!) We learned that certain drugs were dangerous, and that we now have auto recalls. Do you think any of these changes would have happened had there been limited liability?

There's one other very profound observation found in this book. How is it we can trust many un- or ill-informed Americans to vote in national and local elections, but want to restrict twelve fairly well-informed Americans from voting in a jury box?

Don't we trust our fellow Americans?

Please read this book. Make sure you don't get burned.

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Eye-opening treatment of an important issue, December 20, 2007

By 

Jonathan Groner (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Hardcover)

This important book should have received more attention when it was published. Presumably, "tort reform" is just not a sexy enough topic, and even the bright yellow cover and the (presumably intentional) absence of the word "tort" from the title were insufficient.

Avoiding legalese almost completely, Mencimer gives an in-depth account of the lobbying and litigation wars over the civil justice system in the past two decades or so. Unlike other commentators, I didn't find this book an unquestioning brief for the trial lawyers. Mencimer makes clear that some trial lawyers can become extraordinarily wealthy and that some baseless and even frivolous suits are filed. Her real point is that some major companies have tried to achieve in the halls of Congress and the state legislatures and in the ballot box what they could not achieve in court.

The story of the McDonald's coffee lawsuit has been told elsewhere, but Mencimer goes well beyond this to point out other distortions of the truth that have been made by lobbyists for insurance and other industries.

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars How Can Something be so Right and then so Wrong?, June 3, 2007

By 

Philly Phool - See all my reviews

This review is from: Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Hardcover)

For the most part, I agree with the premise of this book: That what republicans are billing as tort reform is a bad idea. One that will cost the average American dearly and reap hefty profits for big business. Corporations, now able to determine their exposure to litigation, can be free to market any product, no matter how dangerous, knowing that there will be a cap on their punitive damages. The American public becomes a guinea pig to corporate irresponsibility. Not a good picture!

That said, as I read this book, I found myself going from unabashed contempt at the behavior of some big business defendants in their attempts to discredit their plaintiff's cases and obtain a 'free break' from liability to incredulity at some of what she was calling 'legitimate lawsuits'. Much of my problem with this book was what I felt I wasn't being told. A woman was abducted from a Wal-Mart parking lot and subsequently raped. She sues Wal-Mart for not having sufficient security to prevent the incident. We are never told if Wal-Mart had any security in effect at the time nor what the legal requirements on the retailer were for providing such security. Don't you think that is relevant to the legitimacy of her case?

A man goes to a doctor's office to have a mole removed. The doctor performs the procedure and leaves him in the room for a period of time said to be 'long'. He falls off the table he was laying on and breaks his neck. He sues the doctor for his injury. How long was he left to wait? Might that be important? I believe that when doctor's aren't in the room with you they are doing this thing we call 'seeing other patients'. In fact, when they are in the room with you, there are actually other patients in other rooms left waiting. Do we have any information that the doctor was indeed negligent in this incident? Was he off playing video games or talking to his golf buddy while his patients were left in limbo? I guess we are supposed to assume so but are never really told such details.

Even when she was on the money, as in the AHP marketing of the fen-phen diet supplement, we see huge punitive awards given to a relatively small number of litigants while we are informed that around 6 million people were affected by this drug. What happens to them? I actually know the answer to this one because I happen to personally know one of them. She got a $15,000 settlement from a class action suit against AHP, which, after the lawyers took their part, came out to just around $10,000. So a half-dozen people got to live in mansions and drive fancy cars while 6 million either went without recompense or got a pittance if they were lucky enough to join the class-action suit! Sounds fair to me!

And here is a great statistical quote from page 255 of the book: "The Rand study found that only one out of every ten Americans injured in accidents pursue compensation for it, and of those, only two actually file a lawsuit." So only 2 of those 1 out of 10 go to court! Interesting! In the end, the author does reveal her true motives. That is, a European style governance complete with universal health benefits and disability to 'take the big money out of personal injury'. Well why didn't she just say that in the first place?

At different points reading this book I wanted to give it 5 stars, and, at others, 1 star. The trouble I had was that I felt it did more to legitimize 'tort reform' than to attack it because the cases presented could equally be taken in the other direction and any intelligent reader would be able to see that. True tort reform, in my opinion, would involve working toward a more consistent way of interpreting the law and assessing damages. I gave it 2 stars because I felt that there was a reasonable amount of valuable information about the corporate influence on the republican party. I would recommend reading it for that reason alone. Just be wary of the information you are not being told.