The Power of Pauline Ethics: The Land Of Licentious Litigiousness
Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that the television airwaves are being inundated with more and more class-action lawsuits initiated on behalf of more and more people who may have been injured or damaged by something or other? If you suffer from mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer normally caused by exposure to asbestos, we are told, call such-and-such a law office. They have filed a lawsuit against the asbestos manufacturers. Billions of dollars have been set aside to settle this suit, they say, but if people don’t sign up soon, they may miss their opportunity to receive any of the legal awards.
But where did this money come from? And who are the attorneys who have filed the class-action suit? And what percentage of the legal awards, if any, will the lawyers receive, should they succeed? And how much will it cost the litigants to join the class-action?
Recently a new commercial has appeared. It urges people who had metal hip implants and who have had problems with them to contact such-and-such a law firm, who will represent the plaintiffs in court at some unspecified future date.
Or how about medications? Perhaps you took such-and-such a pill, and you have had a bad experience with it ever since. Maybe it brought on such-and-such a form of cancer, or maybe it prompted ulcers or hives or hiccups or heaven knows what else.
On the other hand, considering all the warnings presented at the end of television commercials for new kinds of prescription drugs, it is amazing anyone takes anything for anything. If you take this wonderful new treatment, in rare instances you may suffer cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, neurosis, psychosis, overpowering thoughts of suicide, or a slow, painful death from every muscle in your body being robbed of the necessary nutrients to sustain life.
Those types of commercials list all the possible negative side-effects because federal law requires them to do so. The pharmaceutical companies are not eager to enumerate all the horrors their products might visit upon unfortunate customers of their products. There is no question that multitudes of people are living longer and healthier lives because of these medications, but there is also no question that some people are adversely affected by them. And then what? Then is when many of the aggrieved go to court for a redress of grievances.
Do you think medical insurance costs are too high? Medical costs in the USA are twice as high as in other highly developed countries, but that is another story. However, a measurable part of the reason why medical insurance costs so much is that there are lawsuits against hospitals and doctors and other medical providers, and the insurance companies need to set aside a certain percentage of the costs of the premiums to deal with litigation. Either the companies self-insure, and bank a guesstimate of what they think they might need in any given year to defend themselves against unforeseeable claims, or they purchase insurance from another insurance company which specializes in litigation insurance for other insurance companies. It is all part of the cost of doing business in the USA, the Land of Licentious Litigation.
Do doctors’ bills seem excessively high? Part of the reason for that is because doctors must protect themselves from litigation against them for medical malpractice. Some specialties are more subject to such claims than others. Neurosurgeons, pediatricians, and anesthesiologists pay some of the highest rates for medical malpractice insurance. Podiatrists and family practice physicians pay among the lowest rates. But everybody pays, and we pay everybody in order for them to be able to pay what they must for their insurance. In countries where there is a national health system, medical litigation occurs far less frequently than in the USA. People are more willing to accept that doctors may make mistakes, and they are less inclined to make them pay for their mistakes. Americans are the most litigious people in the world; we need to know that.
Litigation is not a new phenomenon, however, nor is it confined only to the USA. There are laws in the biblical Torah regarding litigation, and an explanation of the conditions under which Israelites were allowed to sue one another in court. These laws are perhaps 3000 years old. Sometimes the only way to get justice is to have disputes adjudicated by a judge or jury.
Jesus addressed this issue in the reading you hard earlier in the service. We are not told when or where he said the following, but it is noted at the beginning of the passage that he spoke this “to the multitudes” (Luke 12:54). He said, “And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the last copper” (Luke 12:57-9).
Almost always it is better to resolve legal disputes out of court than in court. For that reason increasing numbers of cases are turned over to professional arbitrators. Both sides agree ahead of time to have the arbitrator make the decision regarding the contested matters. The process costs far less, and both sides may end up better off financially because of arbitration.
Litigation has become a major specialization among attorneys. Many of them are employed directly by various corporations to represent their interests in court, and others are in independent law practices. They are hired by individuals or corporations to litigate disputed legal issues before judges and/or juries.
America has a very high incidence of litigation because America has a very high number of litigation attorneys. America may have more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world. There are more lawyers in Washington, D.C., for example, than there are people. Furthermore, America produces more law school graduates each year than all the lawyers of all ages who live in Japan. Litigators need litigation to keep food on the table, which is why we see all those commercials on television for all those class-action suits and all those ambulance chasers and personal-injury lawyers.
Human life has always been complicated, but contemporary human life is especially complicated. It is inevitable that differences of opinion shall arise which require adjudication. In multiple-car crashes, for example, who is at fault, and who should pay for the repair of the cars when these accidents happen? Of greater consequence, who, or more accurately, whose insurance should pay if there are injuries? And how much should be paid in such instances?
This can become even murkier, depending on who is injured in a car accident. Let us suppose there is a major collision, and the driver or passenger in one of the cars loses a leg as a result of the impact. Does it make a difference if the driver or passenger operates a forklift in a warehouse or if he is Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Peyton Manning or Russell Wilson --- or Barack Obama? Are some legs, or arms, or hands, or fingers, or eyes worth more than the body parts of other people? Who can determine such things? Can such things be fairly determined?
I would guess there is more litigation on a per capita basis in the United States than in most other nations. From what I have read through the years, there seems to be no question that American litigation results in much higher awards for damages, particularly for punitive damages, than in any other country. For example, we can all remember cases which involved smokers who successfully brought suit against tobacco companies or others who sued pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiffs were given millions of dollars by the jury in punitive damages. Often these decisions are either overthrown or lowered on appeal, but sometimes they are upheld. But American juries may be convinced to nail what they consider to be Big Bad Corporations on behalf of the Little Guy seeking justice, and they give him more justice than may be legally or ethically justified.
The trial lawyers association usually contributes far more heavily to Democratic candidates for federal office than to Republican candidates. Thus far Democrats have managed to stave off efforts in Congress to put a cap on jury awards to plaintiffs. Do you suppose there might be a connection between those two facts?
How much is Bill Gates’ leg worth, or Peyton Manning’s arm, or a test pilot’s eye? How can that be measured? And who should do the measuring? In our system, either that is determined in a lawsuit by a jury, whose decision must be supported by the judge, or an arbitrator decides. But the fact of the matter is this: The same basic injury caused by the same basic circumstances may result in hugely varying financial awards.
We know a person who was very badly injured in an unusually freak accident. Almost never would this have happened, except that it did happen. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended to try to bring healing to a terribly injured and infected limb. Who should pay these costs --- her personal health insurance or the insurance policy of the person who, indirectly, caused the accident? If we had a national health system, the costs would be borne by the system, and they wouldn’t be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But we don’t have national health, nor are we likely soon to have it. Thus this situation likely will end up in court, and it is very unpredictable how it will turn out. The injured woman might lose everything she owns, or the other party may lose everything, or the insurance companies may expend very large amounts, but this complex situation is probably going to be resolved in some court somewhere.
The New Testament Church had a problem on its hands. Or at least that’s what the apostle Paul thought. Scholars say that Paul wrote at least four separate letters to the Christians in Corinth, but only two of them have been preserved in the New Testament. Apparently the Christians in Corinth were very obstreperous, and Paul did not hesitate to remind them of that.
One of the things the Corinthians did which vexed Paul was that they hauled one another off to court. That was a major No-No, as far as Paul was concerned. Christians should work out their differences with one another rather than to seek restitution in a civil court, he said.
This concept represents a very different notion of what constitutes Christianity from our notion. The New Testament Church was a very closely-knit group of people. They were small in number, and therefore they knew one another unusually well. In modern terms, they “hung out” almost exclusively with one another, and not much with anybody else. They were like the Amish communities which are scattered throughout the USA, but especially in Pennsylvania and Ohio, or like the Hasidic Jews who live in Brooklyn, or like the Muslims who live in Dearborn, Michigan. Birds of that sort of feather flock together like none of the rest of us tend to flock. We have known countless people for many years, but we may not know whether they have a religious affiliation at all or if they are totally secular. But close-knit religious people stick together.
For that reason, said Paul, Christians ought not to take one another to court. In general, I agree with him. Litigation ought to be --- you should pardon the expression --- the court of last resort. Not only should we avoid litigation against other Christians if at all possible, we should also avoid litigation against all other kinds of people, if at all possible. It is too drastic to say that under no circumstances should anyone sue anyone, but we should do it far less frequently than is our wont as Americans. It is shameful how often courtrooms are used to settle disputes which can be resolved out of court and often at far lower costs to both the disputing parties.
Even for the wealthiest and healthiest of people, life is still inevitably very tenuous. It is impossible to be alive without being subject to what Hamlet called “the thousand natural shocks that life is heir to.” Unforeseen and untoward accidents and exigencies can happen to anyone at any time. Sometimes someone is clearly at fault in these misfortunes, but sometimes they just happen. Stuff happens, Christian people; we need to accept that unpleasant reality.
Paul said to the Corinthians, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren” (I Cor. 12:7-8). “The body is not meant for immortality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body,” said Paul (I Cor. 6:13). We can’t live forever, and we should not sue someone for every dollar in his assets who unintentionally or even intentionally wrongs us.
The content of this sermon is something you may never have heard before in a sermon. I have preached sermons like this before, but not in this congregation. However, as you may have correctly concluded, it is a subject about which I feel deeply.
Licentious litigation probably leads to more licentious litigation. All of us contribute indirectly to the awards made in court by these decisions. God loves justice, and He wants us to seek justice for everyone, especially for those who have been wronged. But it is both unwise and unjust to try to resolve all disputes in court, when most of them can be resolved out of court by reasonable people acting reasonably. We can’t expect everyone to behave objectively and reasonably, but it certainly behooves Christians to attempt to do so. Both Jesus and Paul encourage it, and that should be reason enough for all of us to follow their clear advice.