Frivolous Law Suits
The odds are that you have never heard of a woman named Janine Sugawara. And the odds are that after a few months, her name will completely slip your mind.
But it is entirely probable that her recent lawsuit will put her in a somewhat notorious pantheon of “frivolous lawsuits,” which means that she will be given a title rather than a name by tort reform organizations. And she can expect this title to be bandied about for the rest of time.
As a bit of background, Ms. Sugawara recently filed a class action lawsuit against the Quaker Oats Company. Her gripe was that after four years of purchasing and eating Crunch Berries brand cereal, she discovered that there was no actual fruit involved.
Through the law firm that took her case, Ms. Sugawara’s intention was to collect damages not just for herself, but for everyone else who was bamboozled at the breakfast table. It should be noted the law firm that she was working with had previously filed an unsuccessful suit against the Kellogg’s corporation over the lack of actual fruit in Fruit Loops.
The presiding judge over the case quite rightly threw the case out of court, claiming in his statement:
“In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word "berries" it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term "crunch." This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a "crunchberry." Furthermore, the "Crunchberries" depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains "sweetened corn & oat cereal" and that the cereal is "enlarged to show texture." Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist.”
As we said before, you probably won’t remember her name, but you will certainly remember her lawsuit. Ms. Sugawara will probably be known as “The Crunch Berry Lady,” and she will be lumped in with “The McDonalds Coffee Cup Lady” and the “Million Dollar Pants Guy.” She will be offered up as Exhibit A by tort reform organizations every time they are pushing for restrictions on the rights of regular citizens to go to court. In all probability, this ridiculous case will be offered up as proof that the system is somehow “broken.”
We would argue quite the opposite. We think that had the case been allowed to continue, then maybe the tort reformers would have a point. (In which case, the makers of “grape” and “orange” flavored soda would have had to seriously rethink the titles of their beverages.) But it wasn’t allowed to continue. It was recognized as ridiculous and thrown out.
One aspect of the tort reformers beliefs that we find profoundly troubling is that they seem to believe that you somehow need to QUALIFY in order to have access to the courts. They seem to believe that the only lawsuits that are important are theirs. Lawsuits that involve injuries and illnesses and poorly manufactured and dangerous products are considered bad for business and a waste of time. And we find that very hypocritical, because insurers, HMO’s, pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of all shapes and sizes (in other words, those who fund and vocally support tort reform organizations) spend a great deal of time in court on the plaintiffs side of the judge’s bench. Yet no one is suggesting that these lawsuits are somehow a waste of time, or “frivolous.”
Our court system is not a country club. It is not available for some and not others. It exists to make sure that ALL of our citizens have a legal venue to settle their grievances, be they rich or poor, black or white, liberal or conservative. And yes, there are lawsuits that are ridiculous, but what do the tort reformers propose? Only allowing lawsuits that involve millions of dollars? Warring CEO’s fighting over billion dollar percentage points in a merger are okay but someone breaking their leg on an unmarked wet floor is not?
Justice is blind, not wearing an Yves St. Lauren pantsuit and checking her stock portfolio. Our laws apply equally to everyone. Try to remember that before you sign a petition or vote for a ballot initiative that keeps you from getting your day in court.
To learn more about persona injury issues, please read personal injury. To learn more about our personal injury lawyers, Andrew Bederman, Roger Greenberg, or Jason Fernandez, please read their bios, or view our personal injury videos at Utube.
![BlogSearch.com](<A HREF="http://www.blog-search.com"> <IMG SRC="http://www.blog-search.com/images/smallbutton.gif" WIDTH=80 HEIGHT=15 BORDER=0 ALT="Blog Search: The Source for Blogs"></A>...){kind=link}