Emotions make us do irrational things. Like buy things we can?t afford or pursue a romantic interest who does not share the same feelings.
They also make juries go overboard in awarding financial judgments. The most recent example is the Baltimore jury that ordered a property management firm to pay an 8-year-old Baltimore boy $6 million for failing to get rid of lead paint in an apartment he once occupied.
We do not doubt the suffering of the child, who is slipping behind in school after being diagnosed with lead poisoning six years ago. Studies link lead poisoning to greater risks for learning disabilities, criminal behavior and drug addiction.
But the facts of the case make it unclear whether the boy was poisoned solely in his mother?s home or if he was also exposed to toxic levels in his father?s home, which was not inspected.
And there is no rationale for the amount awarded. How did jurors decide on $6 million? Was their reasoning based on medical and educational needs and lost earnings or a desire to punish the landlord?
A report from professional services firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin Inc. estimates that the U.S. tort system imposes an $825 “lawsuit tax” on every person in the country each year. Think about it. That?s two car or student loan payments or a month?s rent for many people. And it?s more than the $600 the government plans to give back to stimulate the economy.
That means that Baltimore jury?s decision does not just mean $6 million for the injured boy. It means higher prices for everyone on insurance, medical visits and toys, to name a few things.
It may feel good to right a wrong, but society, including those of us in the Baltimore region, cannot afford arbitrary judgments. The American Tort Reform Association labeled the Baltimore region an “area to watch” on its “Judicial Hellhole” list. Studies show litigious areas threaten economic growth and make employers less likely to expand their businesses and add jobs.
Every case is different. But juries must use their heads and not just their hearts in deciding money awards. They may mean to slap errant companies with steep fines, but they cripple each of us in the process when the punishment does not match the actual damage.
