The $67 Million Pants--Good for Selling Newspapers, Bad for Consumers
Most of you probably have heard about Judge Pearson, who is suing a Washington, DC area dry cleaner for $67 Million over the loss of three pants. Most are shocked and outraged by the amount of money being sought by Judge Pearson. Some have used the opportunity to attack the civil justice system and call for tort reform.
I want to take a slightly different tack than others discussing this case and use this opportunity to discuss the real winners and losers from sensational lawsuits like this one.
The real winner, at this point, seems to be big media. Whether it is The View, ABC News, or CNN, it seems like everyone is making money talking about this lawsuit. And why not? I mean, this is a $67 Million lawsuit! That's what it says in the complaint. That's real, huge, life changing money!
In reality, the damages attainable from this suit--assuming that liability on the part of the dry cleaner exists--are limited to the evidence at trial. It doesn't matter whether the complaint states that the lawsuit is seeking $10 or $10 Million. In other words, the amount stated in the complaint is irrelevant.
Why the media never mentions this simple rule of law in its' reporting is unknown. Perhaps because a story about a $65 Million lawsuit will grab more eyeballs (and more money) than the same lawsuit which does not seek a specific amount of damages but merely seeks damages "according to proof."
A significant amount of money sought through this suit will never be awarded. For example, Judge Pearson is seeking $542,000 in legal fees (the "victim" is representing himself and not paying a lawyer--this bars him from collecting attorneys' fees) and $15,000 for ten years of weekend car rentals (how this is related is beyond me--the dry cleaner is only responsible for damages caused by their negligence). Also, most likely not to be awarded is $500,000 for emotional distress arising out of the loss of his pants.
The vast majority of Judge Pearson's damages are statutory damages for ongoing violations of a District of Columbia consumer protection statute. This statute allows, in some cases, for damages in the amount of $1,200 per violation per day. With 3 violations and several years of litigation alone, the total is now millions. However, in most cases, judges will reduce the amount of these damages through a legal tool called "remittur".
The long and the short of it is that, even if Judge Pearson is successful, he most likely will only recover several thousand dollars. Hardly any comfort for the dry cleaners who have already offered to pay him $12,000 and have spent thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees and costs.
Which brings us to the big losers in this case: consumers. All consumers. In other words, you and me--the general public.
Judge Pearson's overzealous litigation is beyond the scope of any decency, beyond what is necessary to prove his case (he intends to call 63 witnesses!), and is just a waste of judicial resources. But the most harmful effect of the lawsuit is that other injured people and wronged consumers who have legitimate claims are now looked upon by their neighbors (read: jurors) as greedy pigs seeking money where they have suffered no harm.
Most clients that contact our office have very modest goals. They want their medical bills paid, their lost wages reimbursed, and an apology. Most would even accept only a small amount for their pain, suffering and inconvenience. Most feel like they are forced to obtain a lawyer after the insurance adjuster is rude to them or doubts that they've been hurt at all.
But with suits like the one for Judge Pearson's pants, these same clients are embarrassed to be making a claim for their reasonable and modest damages. They don't tell their neighbors, friends, family, or coworkers that they've hired an attorney. They don't want to be viewed as greedy or trying to get something for nothing.
The Judge Pearsons of this world just make this perception worse. But they are an abberation and not the norm. Judge Pearson most likely will not be allowed to call 63 witnesses and waste the court's time as he did during his divorce proceedings. And, just like his divorce, the judge in this case will probably lecture him for unnecessarily running up litigation costs.
But by then the damage caused to image of legitimate plaintiffs will already have been done.
