ABSTRACT
Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between ‘tort tale’, ‘total justice’, and ‘mixed narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants’ views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious – a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.
€
Jeb Barnes, Parker Hevron and Elli Menounou, Tort tales and total justice: Exploring attitudes toward everyday tort claims for workplace injuries, Law and Society Review, volume 57, issue 4, 508-530 (December 2023). Published online by Cambridge University Press: 1 January 2024.
Leave a Reply