So Sue Me

We've all heard the bad one: The multi-million dollar award for a hot-coffee at McDonald's. Sadly, these types of cases get stigmatized and characterized, changing the public's perception of attorneys and the judicial system for the worse. The public loses confidence, assuming that "anything goes" these days. I was relieved to learn during my first year of law school that nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of these seemingly outrageous outcomes arise from tort actions. A tort is a civil wrong: you slip and fall due to a wet floor at Walmart, but no signs warning of the wet spot were posted. Bingo! A cool mil headed your way, right?

Not so fast there, money bags. First you need to be injured, incur medical expenses, miss some work, you know, shed a tear or two. Then you need to prove that you weren't put on notice of the wet floor. You pay your best friend to say he was there with you and didn't see a "wet floor" sign (kidding). In reality, you need to get the testimony of some witnesses. People that were there who can vouch for you.

Then comes the hard part: proving Walmart was on notice that the floor had been mopped and yet failed to warn you. Seems easy, right? Wrong. A wet floor is a wet floor. You need to prove an employee or agent of Walmart either caused/knew of the wet spot (actual notice), or should have known it was there (constructive notice).

Then there's the jury, which is a crap shoot. If you comes across as a douchebag, they'll stiff you. Don't overplay your emotions, or they'll think you're just plain whiny. Somewhere in the middle where you tug at their heartstrings is the place to be.

So, you've proven Walmart caused the wet spot, the jury likes you and decides to give you only $500K, you're in the clear, right? Think again.

You've still got a judge who can lower the jury's award (remittitur) if he thinks they were too sympathetic. Let's say you've got a greedy one, and he lowers your award to $250K.

So, you only got a quarter of what you wanted, but now it's over right? Nope.

Walmart will appeal the verdict and will argue everything and the kitchen sink as to why the trial judge and jury screwed up the case. Oh crap, the judge told something he shouldn't have to the jury. It affected their judgment and the verdict amount. Back to square one. New trial. New jury.

While this is in no way conclusive of the potential legal hurdles, it represents a hundredth of a percent of potential pitfalls that can cause your Walmart windfall to go awry.

Let's ignore the fact that at this point, you owe your attorney $100,000. Doh!