Court have overtime been at the forefront of provision of justice for those who have been accused and this is achieved through compensation through various remedies. However, in certain instances, the cases that are brought to courts actually have no merit and is basically a waste of the courts time and such cases are referred to as frivolous law suits. Therefore, the thesis of this research is to examine whether the concept of frivolous law suit is accurate or a mere fallacy.
First and foremost, it is worth noting that for any person to be held liable for any action, they ought to owe the affected individual a duty of care. This legal concept was set forth in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson. Frivolous law suits have taken up different forms such as through the jackpot justice narrative that basically includes the situation where an individual presents a case in court however, the claimants are quite sure that the law suit won’t push through and therefore, lead to a settlement.
In making a determination on whether a particular case is frivolous in nature, there are various factors that are taken into consideration and it includes; Absurd theories presented, claiming extreme remedies due to the damages incurred and finally, the case presented virtually has no legal merit.
In making an analysis on the issue of the frivolous law suits, the case of Norman vs Rhodes will be taken into consideration. This case can be deemed as being frivolous based on the grounds that first and foremost, the claims that were being made by the parents to the deceased were quite absurd in nature. This is attributed to the fact that there was contributory negligence based on the fact that the daughter was quite intoxicated and that was the main factor that led to the accident occurring. Therefore, this indicates the case virtually had little merit to go by it as their main objective was to seek settlement from Honda, the vehicle manufacturing company.
The family was awarded damages of up to 25% however, this case although at the formative stage, it indicated the probability of being a legit claim, the mere fact that an individual is unable to unlock the seat belt due to being intoxicated, is not a wrongful act in relation to the particular company involved.
Therefore, this case indicates a case that lacked actual legal merit and at the same time the court still went ahead and awarded them 25%. This indicates an abuse of the powers of the courts as their responsibility to to uphold justice however; in situation of evidence of contributory negligence the damages issued ought to be nominal.
In effort, to bring reforms with regards to such proceedings, the American Tort Reform Association was formed for the sole initiative to look into this aspect.In conclusion, there is adamant need to ensure that frivolous cases are thrown out of court to ensure that the important cases are listened to first.
Work cited
Rhode, Deborrah. "In the interest of justice." Frivolous litigation in civil justice reform: Miscasting the problem, recasting the solution (2000): 83-84.
