Maybe there is some justice in the world. On June 26th, a teary-eyed Roy Pearson Jr., an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., was told he would NOT be awarded the $54 million in damages that he sought after his dry cleaner, Custom Cleaners, lost a pair of his pants. Wow. That would have been one very expensive pair of pants!

Pearson’s suit teetered on his flimsy claim that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign hanging in the defendants’ store constitutes an act of fraud. I gotta tell you, this one actually gave me a belly laugh. Until, of course, I started thinking about poor Korean family caught up in the madness. In this one case, it seems like our judicial systems actually got it right. I mean, how could Pearson actually sleep at night knowing that he was trying to ruin a family’s life because a pair of his pants was misplaced? And this man is a judge? God forbid he had tripped while in the store.

Pearson is what I would call anti-Social Age — a world of me, more, better, mine, as opposed to us, enough, just right, ours.

For years I’ve been hearing about some of the crazy settlements that have been made with plaintiffs claiming some of the most ludicrous things in the world. Don’t get me wrong — there are many legitimate wrongful this or that suits that deserve the attention of our lawyers and court system. But I can’t help but wonder if tort reform is something that might find more sure footing as we move into The Social Age.

“Tort” is a legal term that means “a civil wrong”, (or “criminal wrong”), that is recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. To behave ‘tortiously’ is to harm another’s body, property, or legal rights, or to breach a duty owed under statutory law. Tort cases fall into categories such as negligence, defamation and nuisance (among others). “Tort reform” describes a change in United States civil law system to improve litigation efficiency or reduce litigation’s adverse effects on the economy. (source Wikipedia.org)

Now I’m no expert on tort, or tort reform for that matter. But I do think I possess a modicum of common sense (which I call special sense, because it’s not that common — but that’s another topic), and given the evidence and context of an issue can pretty much figure out if the plaintiff has a legitimate gripe or not. The problem is that some percentage of citizens and their lawyers see tort cases as a substitute for winning the lottery and astronomical judgments or settlements have become more commonplace than I’d like to see.

I found some statistics on the American Tort Reform Association website that outline just how much these crazy cases are costing us.

* The cost of the U.S. tort system for 2003 was $246 billion, or $845 per citizen or $3,380 for a family of four.
* U.S. tort costs increased 35.4 percent from 2000 to 2003.
* The Growth of U.S. tort costs have exceeded the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2-3 percentage points in the past 50 years.
* The U.S. tort system is inefficient; it returns less than 50 cents on the dollar and less than 22 cents for actual economic loss to claimants.

Granted, there are times when a company, individual or government is actually at fault. And in those cases, justice should be done. But what about the ever increasing level of tort cases? Could all of those be legitimate grievances?

In The Social Age, the idea of “gaming the system” doesn’t exist. Fairness, empathy and true acts of responsibility replace abuse, selfishness and blame as core components of human interaction. In The Social Age, I’m not trying to sue the other guy so that I get ahead, but collaborating with the other guy so we BOTH get ahead.

Most of us have heard of the McDonald’s coffee case where a woman won a large settlement from the fast food giant after spilling a cup of coffee on herself. After doing my own digging into the facts of the case, I learned that McDonalds was indeed negligent as they were aware that a burn hazard existed when they purposely served coffee 40-50 degrees hotter than the 140 degree F recommendation.

But not all suits are that clear cut. Here are two of the more ridiculous ones I found on Legalzoom.com:

In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

But perhaps the most disturbing story of all is the current case of conservative-tort reformer-failed Supreme court nominee Robert Bork and his suit against the Yale Club of New York. Bork is an outspoken opponent of frivolous lawsuits and their “lottery-like windfalls”. That was until Bork sustained injuries last year while approaching the dais at an event at the Yale Club of New York. That day Bork went on to give his speech, but now, a year later, he is suing the Yale Club for “wanton, willful and reckless disregard for the safety of its guests.” According to the suit, Bork has suffered “excruciating pain” and undergone extensive medical treatment and surgery to address the resulting hematoma (an advanced bruise that has solidified) on his injured leg. The $1 million suit claims that there should have been steps and a handrail to the dais.

Can you say hypocritical?

I’d like to live in a world where this kind of behavior didn’t exist. I don’t want to worry about having someone come clean my windows for fear they will fall and sue me. Nor do I want my tax dollars to benefit those who choose to intentionally take advantage of the legal protections provided in our country. I understand that tort reform is a complex issue and there are a lot of stakeholders with very differing motivations. So I’m not going to even try to comment on what should happen with tort reform. What I can say is that WE have the opportunity to change this cultural toxin.

So I have no pity for Judge Pearson. His actions make me wonder about his ability to judge others fairly, which of course is his job. Maybe lawyers have a lot to learn in The Social Age.