Reader Contest 2: Improve This - Winner!

UPDATE: I got fewer responses than the last contest, but I'm happy to congratulate "Peter" on winning the second Reader Contest.  Peter suggests that we use the challenge of the court of public opinion to help raise funds and raise a negative reaction against the plaintiff.  I especially like his call for $1 "micro-donations".  One would think that at least a million people would PayPal a dollar each to the defendant.  And with the global reach of the Net, this can quickly add up.  Peter, your iTunes gift card is on the way.

While I love Peter's answer, I would add another Challenge Dividend solution: a law that would force the plaintiff to cover legal costs if he loses his case.  My inspiration is a recent story in which a man tried to sue his dry cleaner for $54 million because of a supposedly misplaced pair of suit pants.  The entire story is pretty amazing - the plaintiff, Roy Pearson, is himself an administrative law judge in Washington, DC, and he actually cried on the stand as he represented himself in the case.  But this week Judge Judith Bartnoff threw out his complaint.

In addition, Judge Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the defendants' filing fees and other court costs.  Their lawyer is also asking for $100,000 in attorney's fees. (UPDATE: fundraising events helped send the defendants an additional $100k, and Pearson is about to be fired)  I believe this is a strong precedent and should be a more formal part of the legal process - if you fail to prove a basis for a case, a judge should be able to assign court and attorney costs to the defendant.  In the case below,  Dean Hancock would be forced to put some skin the game, and this may particularly discourage over-reaching into lawsuits against innocent bystanders like the tow truck driver.

But at the end of the day, the court of public opinion is probably the strongest challenge to frivolous lawsuits.  Our society increasingly frowns on "jackpot justice" and has turned people like Dean Hancock, Roy Pearson, and Stella Liebeck into public villains.  In a world in which people's mistakes are captured forever on Google, many people might think twice about testing these limits of law and society.

(The Original Contest):

In January I conducted the first Challenge Dividend Contest, in which the person with the best answer to the challenge here scored a $10 iTunes Gift Card.  Now it's time for Round 2.  I'm heading on vacation for a few weeks and decided to set this up to keep you thinking while I'm gone.  In addition, this particular issue is something that I actually don't have a good solution for.  So let's see what the wisdom of crowds can do...

In the early morning hours of April 29th, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, Josh Hancock, was killed when he drove into a stopped tow truck.  Hancock's blood alcohol content was twice the legal limit, he was on the phone at the time, wasn't wearing a seat belt, and marijuana was found in his car.  It was a very unfortunate incident, but gladly no one else was hurt - yet.

On May 24, Dean Hancock, Josh's father, filed lawsuits against several individuals who were "involved" in his son's accident.  This included:

• The owner of the restaurant that served Josh drinks.
• The driver of the tow truck that Josh crashed into.
• The driver of the car that was being towed.

For just a moment, imagine being the driver of the tow truck or stalled car.  First, you are unlucky enough to be on the side of the road working on a car as others whiz by in the early morning.  Second, a drunken baseball player plows into your truck and car, you see his death before your eyes.  And finally, because your car stalled and this player was loaded, you are now the target of a lawsuit.

Clearly the law is there for Dean Hancock.  He can sue a ham sandwich if he wants, and usually insurance companies and individuals are so worried about jackpot payouts and bad PR that they end up settling because of only a threat. 

This contest asks the question: How can the restaurant owner, tow truck driver, and car driver use the Challenge Dividend to their advantage?  How can they challenge lawsuits that threaten their personal life savings and future earnings - when they did nothing wrong?  You may show alternatives that currently exist, or propose new laws that should be enacted.  Just make sure it uses the Challenge Dividend theory - i.e. something that challenges Dean Hancock in a way that leads to a better outcome for society.

The person with the best answer (selected by yours truly) will receive a $10 iTunes gift card. Entries should be placed in the Comments here, and the deadline is Monday, June 25, at 12pm EST.  One entry per household, and please keep total answers under 500 words.  Good luck!

Comments

[Peter]

I recommned that the three defendants post a plea on YouTube to raise legal defense funds. The plea would be a simple "facts of the case" testimonial as appeared in the news. They would set a goal of $1 pay pal donation per viewer to fight the suit.

Vigorous defense plus negative publicity might cause others to think twice about frivolous lawsuits while giving attorneys notice that the cost of pursuing these goes up.

[Michael Wilson]

Just missed the contest date... Oh well...

I would not settle, fight the suit, but shoot a documentary of the process to expose the frivolous nature of lawsuits in todays world.

So even if you lose you win.