Frivolous Laws and Frivolous Lawsuits

Most of us are familiar with Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, the highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit that saw a customer sue McDonald’s for damages when she spilled hot coffee on her lap, resulting in third-degree burns that required skin grafts. Like most Americans at the time, I thought that the lawsuit was ridiculous.

After all, everyone knows that coffee is hot, right? And if you try cradling a steaming hot cup of joe between your knees while you’re removing the lid, you’re just asking for trouble.

Stella Liebeck, the 79-year-old defendant in the case, became a bit of a national laughingstock and the case became a lightning rod for much-needed tort reform. Ironically, the case never should have gone to trial because despite her injuries, Liebeck was willing to settle for just $20,000 to cover her current and future medical expenses as well as her daughter’s lost wages while she cared for her mother. In a gross miscalculation that revealed a complete lack of empathy, McDonald’s countered by offering $800 and so, Liebeck’s attorney sued the fast-food chain for gross negligence… and won a $2.8 million award for his client.

What a public relations nightmare for Mickey D’s!

However, that was just the tip of the iceberg. Emboldened by Liebeck’s lucrative settlement, people have been suing corporate America ever since. In fact, it has become a bit of a spectator sport, because you can’t drive down a highway in Florida without seeing a billboard boasting how much money XYZ law firm won for their client.

Personal injury lawyers perform a valuable service but there is a subspecies that is an absolute affront to the legal profession. They are commonly known as “ambulance chasers”, and they will gladly help you sue a doctor, a fellow lawyer, or even an Indian chief for a percentage of your winnings.

So, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats? I have a few suggestions.

First, every time a judge deems a case to be frivolous in nature, the client should be forced to pay all court costs for both parties, the plaintiff and the defendant. Second, the attorney who brought the frivolous case should be given a warning from the bench that is placed on his permanent legal record as well as a substantial fine.

The second time an attorney wastes the court’s time with a ridiculous claim, the fine should be much more substantial and his or her law license should be suspended for six months. If there is a third time, the offending attorney should be disbarred for life.

In other words, three strikes and you’re out!

My guess is that people would think twice about making groundless accusations in a court of law if they knew that they would be required to foot the bill. And lawyers would be even more reluctant to represent such a client if they knew that their law license might hang in the balance.

Of course, if neither of these deterrents does the trick, I’m O.K. with bringing back the stocks, public flogging, or tar and feathering (and I’m only half-kidding).

Which brings me to my second point about frivolous laws… and the frivolous lawmakers who propose them.

The Florida state legislature recently adjourned after a marathon special session that was required to reconcile the Senate and House budgets. Lost amidst the intense negotiations was this hard-to-fathom fact: during the 2025 Regular Session, Florida’s 39 state senators (there is a vacancy in District 15) introduced a whopping 977 bills. That breaks down to 25 bills per senator.

Not to be outdone, Florida’s 120 state representatives proposed an even more astronomical 8,105 bills… or almost 68 per representative.

Call me a skeptic, but is there really a need for 9,082 new laws in the Sunshine State? Or are these elected officials really just trying to make a name for themselves by throwing as much garbage against the wall as possible and hoping that something with their name attached to it sticks?

Sure, there were bills that were introduced, debated, passed, and signed into law that were 100% necessary and kudos to those legislators who sponsored them. But did we really need bills to revise the definition of the term “school bus”… or to authorize pawnbroker transaction forms to be in digital or printed formats… or to revise the maximum allowable capacity for individual wine containers sold in Florida?

Do you know what I would like to see? Fewer bills introduced… and the ones that are to be ones of real substance and necessity. Then our legislators could spend their valuable time – and our even more valuable tax dollars – debating the merits of consequential legislation, not regulatory fluff whose sole purpose is to show the folks back home that I was (supposedly) working hard on their behalf.

To all you backbenchers in Tallahassee and the other 49 state capitols – as well as the 535 members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives – I have a suggestion. If you really want to serve your constituents and make a name for yourself at the same time, try this: introduce a bill that requires that for every bill enacted into law, five existing laws must be stricken from the books.

Personally, I am looking for politicians who don’t do business as usual, but who are willing to think outside the box and buck the establishment while they’re at it.