If you are injured by someone's negligence, shouldn't you be compensated for your pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life? Or, are frivolous lawsuits ruining the country?

Ever since a jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (reduced to $480,000) to Stella Liebeck, a 79 year-old woman who was served scalding hot coffee by McDonald's, insurance companies and business interests have insisted that "frivolous lawsuits" were wrecking the economy. (Stella had 3rd degree burns on her legs and genitals requiring multiple skin grafts – 700 other people had been similarly injured). The campaign has included creating false accounts of so-called frivolous lawsuits to create a belief in the general public, who later become jurors, that injured plaintiffs don't deserve compensation.

In two recent cases, the Vermont Supreme Court decided juries were frivolous not to award compensation to injured victims. In one case, it ordered a new trial for a woman who fell on a slippery floor, hit her head and sustained permanent back and neck injuries. The jury awarded her money for medical care and lost wages, but nothing for past or future pain and suffering. A unanimous court decided there was no plausible explanation for a jury to award nothing for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life in the face of medical evidence detailing invasive surgery and the certainty of future pain.

In the second case, the plaintiff was injured by an uninsured motorist and sued her own insurance company. The jury awarded her $10,000 for permanent injury and future medical expenses, but nothing for future loss of enjoyment of life. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay her $40,000 for the future pain, or in the alternative, to grant a new trial. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. The Court said it simply made no sense for a jury to find a plaintiff had future medical problems but not to compensate her for the inevitable pain and loss of enjoyment of life her injuries would cause.

The rule of law requires that if one person injures another, compensation be paid to the victim otherwise it is inevitable that injured people will bear all the risks inherent in an industrial society while wrongdoers profit, and have no reason to stress safety. Myriad lawsuits in this county seek justice for victims. If a suit is truly frivolous, juries can throw them out, but if they have merit, the Court decided, victims should be fully compensated. Smedberg v. Detlef's Custodial Services 2007 VT 99; Wetmore v. State Farm Ins. Co. 2007 VT 97.

<<Back to Home Page