Timothy F. Rayne, Esquire
With all of the talk in recent years of "tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits," I was encouraged, as a trial lawyer, to hear of how our legal system dealt with the frivolous lawsuit in which a man sued a dry cleaner for $67 million over a lost pair of pants. The result of that case firmly convinces me that so-called "tort reform," which often punishes injured victims with legitimate claims, is not necessary to eliminate meritless legal claims. Instead, most jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, already have rules in place to punish litigants and lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.
The $67 Million Pants LawsuitThe trouble started in 2002 when a cleaner in Washington, DC, owned by the Chung family, was doing business with Roy Pearson, an Administrative Law Judge in Washington, DC. When the Chungs accidentally lost Pearson's pants, a dispute arose. Eventually, the Chungs paid Pearson $150 and banned him from their store. Three years later, Pearson pleaded for permission to be a customer again, claiming he had no car and the Chungs were the only cleaner in his neighborhood. The Chungs relented and removed the lifetime ban in what turned out to be a fateful decision.
On May 3, 2005, Pearson paid $10.50 to have a pair of pants altered. On May 5, 2005, the pants were not ready and Mr. Chung promised Pearson that they would be ready the next day. Then, the pants went missing for a week and Pearson claimed that the pants that were eventually found and presented to him were not his.
Relying on the Chung's signs promising "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service," Pearson sued the Chungs for $67 million under a Washington, DC consumer protection statute. The suit claimed that the law provided for hefty daily fines per violation, which added up to millions of dollars in damages. Pearson claimed additional damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorneys' fees for representing himself.
The Chungs tried to settle to avoid crippling defense costs by offering $3,000, then $4,000 and finally $12,000, but Pearson rejected all offers.
Ultimately, the Chungs were vindicated at trial. Even after Pearson's tearful testimony over his lost trousers, his claim was rejected. The Chungs were awarded their court costs and a Motion filed by the Chungs to recover their legal fees is pending. There is also talk of Pearson losing his job as a judge and possibly facing ethical charges or disbarment for pursuing his pants lawsuit.
Pennsylvania Protections from Frivolous LawsuitsIn Pennsylvania, as in most jurisdictions, there are court rules and laws already in place to prevent litigants and attorneys from pursuing frivolous claims. These measures deter and punish such conduct. Both the Pennsylvania State and Federal Civil Court Rules provide that legal papers cannot be filed for an improper purpose or to pursue frivolous claims. The Rules provide for sanctions on litigants and attorneys who violate such rules. In addition, Pennsylvania law provides that if a frivolous lawsuit is filed and later is terminated in favor of a defendant, that defendant can file a claim against the offending party, and often that party's attorney, seeking damages. Such damages can include the attorneys' fees incurred in defending the frivolous lawsuit.
The Danger of "Tort Reform"
Whenever crazy cases like Judge Pearson's pant lawsuit are publicized, the knee jerk reaction of the media is to blame all attorneys and advocate for "tort reform." However, the pants lawsuit is actually a shining example of how our legal system deals with frivolous lawsuits. First, it is important to note that no lawyer represented Pearson. Instead, Pearson tried the case himself. Second, Pearson's suit was unsuccessful and he faces possible court sanctions for bringing it. So, the existing court system disposed of this frivolous case appropriately.
So-called "tort reform" usually results in blanket rules protecting all defendants and harming all victims of accidents. For example, the most popular "tort reform" is damage caps which limit the amount of compensation that a victim can receive, regardless of how injured the victim is, how wrongful the defendant's conduct was and how much money or insurance the defendant has.
In considering the merits of such "tort reform," I ask you to take into account that, at least in Pennsylvania, we already have systems in place to deter and punish frivolous lawsuits. In Pennsylvania, Judge Pearson would have left the courthouse without his pants and his wallet.
Click here to view the author's biography.MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com
Speak with a licensed attorney about your own specific situation.
© Copyright 2007 MacElree Harvey, Ltd. All rights reserved.
