 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
|
VOLUME 4 Spring 2004 | ||||||
|
|
JUDICIAL HELLHOLES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND FLORIDA Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esq. and Fang Li
A survey conducted by members of the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) determined that the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and courts in Miami-Dade County, Florida are “judicial hellholes.” Personal injury lawyers bring cases to judicial hellholes like Philadelphia and Miami-Dade County because these courts are plaintiff-friendly, are likely to award large settlement and verdict amounts, and will often entertain new causes of action.
In Philadelphia, the impact of extraordinary awards is most noticeable in the healthcare industry. A 2003 study by the Pew Charitable Trusts showed that, in Philadelphia, plaintiffs are twice as likely to win jury trials as opposed to the rest of the nation, and a substantial percentage of cases result in verdicts exceeding one million dollars. One researcher found that between 1999 and 2001, Philadelphia courts returned verdicts of one million dollars or more an average of 29 times a year, compared to an average of 37 times a year in all of California.
According to a representative of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the median verdict in medical liability cases from 1994 through 2001 in Philadelphia was $972,900, compared with $410,000 in the rest of the state. Data also suggest that payments to settle cases continue to rise, setting historical records.
Philadelphia courts do not just favor plaintiffs in medical malpractice lawsuits. In a case in which a plaintiff tripped over a raised manhole cover in the parking lot of Home Depot, the jury awarded a one million dollar verdict for the plaintiff.
Miami-Dade, Florida is the judicial hellhole responsible for the largest civil judgment in this country’s history. The jury awarded $145 billion in punitive damages against the tobacco industry in Engle v. RJ Reynolds. Miami-Dade courts also refuse to follow persuasive precedent in allowing punitive damages. For example, a Miami-Dade jury found Texaco Refining and Marketing liable for $33.8 million in punitive damages even though the court found the plaintiff had suffered no economic damages. The Miami-Dade court specifically ignored binding precedent that required plaintiffs to suffer actual damages in order to receive punitive damages. Judicial hellholes like Miami-Dade also spawn new causes of action previously unknown. Miami-Dade was one of the first counties to try a negligence case linking a car accident with cell phone use. By December 2002, there had already been two multi-million dollar verdicts based on this new theory. In one case, a woman was awarded $21 million, and in the other, the decedent’s widow received $5.2 million.
Plaintiffs flock to Philadelphia and Miami-Dade because the courts there are “magnet courts.” In these jurisdictions, the law is not always applied correctly and there is a systematic bias against defendants, especially ones located outside of the state. Routinely, one can expect record setting judgments, higher rates of winning trials, misapplication of the law favoring plaintiffs, and new theories of liability, all favoring the plaintiffs.
|
||
|
|
|||
