|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Individual Versus Business in the Courts
| Article
# : |
19335 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1991 |
6,156 Words |
| Author
: |
Terence Dunworth and Theodore Eisenberg
Terence Dunworth conducts research into the civil and criminal
justice systems at RAND. He is the author of Product
Liabilities in the Business Sector (RAND R-3668-ICJ, 1989) and
A Statistical Overview of Civil Litigation in the Federal
Courts (RAND R-3885-ICJ, 199). Theodore Eisenberg is professor
of law at Cornell Law School, where he teaches courses on
empirical studies of the legal system, civil rights,
bankruptcy, and tax. He is coauthor of The Quiet Revolution in
Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change (1990)
and has published several other empirical studies of the legal
system. |
Preserving individual freedom is the cornerstone of American democracy. The Constitution's promise is that the smallest and weakest of us shall have the same rights as the biggest and strongest. To realize this promise, we look in large part to the nation's legal system, where rights are supposed to be least influenced by the disparities in wealth, power, and abilities that attend the human condition. And it is there that the individual, if believing himself or herself to have been wronged, has the right to challenge the powerful, organized forces that have developed as the nation has grown over the last two hundred years.
Individuals making such challenges usually confront governmental agencies or businesses, the two groups in which power and wealth are most concentrated. Cases against the government often are about constitutionally prohibited behavior, whereas cases against businesses, the subject of this discussion, often seek money to compensate for private wrongs. When the opponent is a business, it is frequently a corporation. Sometimes, the corporation is large, with more resources and wealth than entire nations. Corporations employ what looks to the individual like a formidable array of legal talent. In the aggregate, corporate America employs many thousands of lawyers and spends billions of dollars on litigation.
Of course, the same Constitution that promises that the courts will be a fair forum for the weak also promises fair process for the strong. Though might should not make right, it also should not make wrong. The fact that a corporation is large, has a lot of money, and employs many lawyers means neither that it has no right to defend itself against claims, nor that it is automatically at fault with respect to any particular individual's claim. The decision about who is right and who is wrong, who pays and who doesn't, should be made on the merits of the claim, not on the basis of relative power or wealth. Justice should be blind, no matter in which direction she is looking.
Nevertheless, the disparity in resources, at first glance, makes the individual versus corporation contest seem like David going up against Goliath, with an almost certainly sadder ending for David than the original one. Yet, individuals often prevail. Sometimes they prevail dramatically. Recently, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a decision awarding more than $800,000 in punitive damages against an insurance company whose agent had misappropriated plaintiffs' insurance premiums. Individual claims by injured asbestos workers have brought the entire asbestos industry to its knees, with many of the
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
