Richmond Personal Injury Lawyer

John Stossel and Other Tort Reform Hypocrites

by admin on 18/06/11 at 2:14 am

John Stossel used to be a whiny left-wing consumer advocate famous for fudging facts and citing “some people say” as his source, and now he is a whiny right-wing shill for big business and tort reform advocates famous for fudging facts and citing “some people” as his source.  His style of reporting is the epitomy of yellow journalism.  How does one make such a profound philosophical shift from liberal consumer advocate to right-wing consumer hater?  As reported in a 2004 Washington Monthly piece by Stephanie Mencimer, Stossel gave a clue to his flip-flop during a 1996 speech to the Federalist Society:

“While he doesn’t include it in the book, Stossel did once offer the real explanation. In what was perhaps a moment of candor back in 1996, when he was giving a speech to the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, someone asked Stossel why he had abandoned consumer reporting to bash government and trial lawyers. According to the Corporate Crime Reporter, Stossel replied, “I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas.”

So, how far is Stossel willing to go to appease the people paying him “so much money” to bash lawyers  and consumers?  Yesterday, Mr. Stossel said on FOX that ”[f]or every person lawyers help, they hurt thousands more.”  He’s now attacking the very system our forefathers believed was a bedrock of our constitutional system.  See e.g., The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.  He’s also referred to personal injury lawyers as his “mortal enemy.”  That’s funny because Stossel once hired a personal injury lawyer to sue professional wrestler, Dave Shultz, and the World Wrestling Federation after Shultz bitch-slapped Stossel during one of Stossel’s whiny interviews.  Stossel reportedly settled his case for $400,000.00.  That’s a lot of jack for an open-hand slap.

As reported by Jeffrey M. Adams, here are some other examples of outspoken critics of the tort system being willing participants in the same system when it suited them or their family:

In California perhaps the most ardent critic of tort reform is a gentleman named Fred J. Hiestand.  He is general counsel to the Civil Justice Association of California (“CJAC”).  His name is synonymous with tort reform.  Mr. Hiestand filed a class action against the City of Sacramento, the City’s Chief of Police, City Police Officers, and a tow truck company for towing his car after he left it in a no-parking zone.

The lawsuit seeks damages from the tow truck company under Business and Professions Code Section 17200; California’s Unfair Competition Law.  The true irony is this is a law that CJAC and business groups successfully curbed in 2004 via the infamous Proposition 64.

Most of us remember that former President George W. Bush frequently lampooned what he called “frivolous and junk lawsuits.”  As Governor of Texas he successful spearheaded a tort reform campaign.  What is not so well known is that while Governor he filed a lawsuit on behalf of one of his daughter’s regarding a motor vehicle collision.  The case reportedly settled for approximately $2000-2500.

Robert Bork, failed nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court filed a personal injury suit against New York City’s Yale Club.  The suit alleged that the dais where he was scheduled to speak did not have a handrail or stairs.  He banged his leg on the side of the dais and hit his head on a heat register.  The suit further alleged that the injury required surgery.  Mr. Bork, a critic of punitive damages, included a claim for punitive damages in his lawsuit.  As any practitioner of personal injury claims knows, punitive damages are an extremely rare occurrence in litigation.

In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, former Solicitor General, counsel to George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, criticized what they called the “expensive, capricious and unpredictable” civil justice system in the U.S.  In an article they said, “Today’s merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation — anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates”.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R. Mississippi, referring to personal injury lawsuits, coined the phrase “crackpot justice”, and was another vocal opponent of the civil justice system.  Hurricane Katrina may have changed or, perhaps, softened his views.  He was a litigant in a class action lawsuit regarding the loss of his home.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R. Texas, before he recast himself on Dancing With The Stars, shared these sentiments:  “frivolous, parasitic lawsuits” raise insurance premiums and “kill jobs”; trial lawyers “get fat off the pain” of plaintiffs and off “the hard work” of defendants.  He too was a plaintiff in a wrongful death suit that sought actual and punitive damages regarding the loss of his father.  The case settled in 1993 for a reported $250,000.

Rick Santorum, R. Pennsylvania, former Senator, in a speech on the Senate floor said, “We have a much too costly legal system.  It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole.  While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do.”  He also sought a cap on non economic damages in personal injury litigation of $250,000.

That was said prior to his wife filing a lawsuit against her chiropractor for monetary damages.  He testified at trial where a jury awarded $350,000.  The trial judge reduced the verdict to $175,000.

There is nothing worse than representing one of these hypocrites in a personal injury case.   In their minds, the same case that would have been “frivolous” had the harm happened to someone else, is now worth mega-bucks because it happend to them.